Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
aquatus1

Proof of Creationism

692 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aquatus1

It isn't completely pointless. After all, you defined what you meant by creationism (even if it isn't the commonly understood version), and you came close to offering a theory, although you didn't quite get there. If you would like to complete the last two requirements, those being a theory and evidence to support it, you may have something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wings of Selkhet

aquatus, are you going to attempt to refute the claims in those two articles posted? if not, I can give it a shot (the first one, at least)...I'm pretty well-versed in astronomy/cosmology...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashley-Star*Child
Almost any thread, in fact, I would dare to say all, that discusses God, at one or another tends to bring up the Evo vs. Cre debate.

The Cre's claim that evolution is false.  Evo's deny it, claiming evidence.  Cre's demand evidence.  Evo's post it.  Cre's retaliate by cutting and pasting various creative interpretations of reality.  Evo's prove it wrong.  Cre's claim evolution is false, and around it goes ad infinitum.  Inevitably, someone trying to keep the peace proposes the hidden compromise of "Both Evolution and Creationism have evidence."  The Cre's rejoice, and insist that they do indeed.

Let's try a slightly different spin.

Let us assume that Evolution was never discovered.  Let us assume that none of the scientist of Darwin's era who independently deduced evolution ever brought it to the public.  Evolution, for all intents and purposes, has never existed, and by extension, the various biological fields that arose from it have not existed either.

That is our assumption:  Evolution does not exist.

Now, someone wishes to propose Creationism as a scientific theory.  Science, still being science, needs to see evidence for its existence.  Science, being science, demands that the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology be met.

To all creationists out there, this is the challenge:  Show evidence which supports the theory of Creationism.

Not evidence that Evolution is false; we have already assumed that.  Not claims such as "Well, what else is there?".  We Evo's hear it on a daily basis from the Cre's:  "There is evidence for Creationism!"  "Creationism has been proven!".  This thread is precisely for that evidence.  This thread is concerned only with evidence that supports the theory of Creationism.

Now, just to make it a little easier, here is what science would, at a minimum, need in order to consider a theory valid:

A.)  A complete definition of The Theory of Creationism, including specific phenomena and explanations of how that phenomena occurred, occurs, and will occur.

B.)  Compatibility with the five prerequisites of scientific methodology:

1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result, not vice-versa.

This is a serious challenge to all those Creationists who have repeatedly insisted that Creationism was a real event.  If you believe in Creationism, but do not claim it to be fact, then this thread is not intended for you (but feel free to participate).  This is the opportunity for all literal creationists to show us your evidence.  We will not bring evolution into this at all.  Evolution, for all intents and purposes, does not exist in this thread.  Science does, and do not expect to go unchallenged, however the theory of evolution and all of the fields that have grown from it will not be used in any response to any evidence presented to support Creationism.  If you like, you can consider it a dare:

Define Creationism, and provide evidence to support it.

To be perfectly frank, I do not expect creationists to be able to do either.  Prove me wrong, if you can.

445364[/snapback]

I'm not in the mood for arguments today, so I'm not going to go through this now, except to say, in many other posts, I gave a timeline, based on the ancient Texts of Enoch of the dinorsaurs co-existing with man, and the cause of death, with includes both of the 'popular' theories of scince for they they died out. It would seem, from these ancient texts, both are right, and one lead to the other.

The importance of this is that, if it were true that they co-existed, evolution and even carbon dating and the other dating methods which claim the Earth to be millions of years old, would in fact be wrong.

Anyway, I'll come back to this later. I'd be interested to see what everyone else comes up with though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182
What is the alternative to creation? Evolution.

What is the alternative to evolution? Creation.

If evolution of humans is false, would't that proove creation?

Maybe not. Maybe there are other theories out there.

I believe that the creation did not take 7 earth days. But

7 God years. Since God can travel at the speed of light,

we have no clue how long it really took to create earth.

The Bible says seven days. But is't a day with God like a thousand?

Or ist a thousand years like a day? Or something like that...

All I know is that if the only 2 choices are evolution, and creation,

then by eliminating the possibility of one, should answer the question.

The problem is that all people do is try to disproove theories scientifically. And science has its limitations.

446247[/snapback]

God can travel at the speed of light?

So hes limited in his capability? I thought he was all powerful therefor did not follow the same rules such as C

God also followed his own creation laws of physics, or the same physics that exist here, exist outside the universe. C is multi-universal?

Edited by whoa182

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
What is the problem? You cannot proove either. Why? Because the evidence

we provide will not proove anything. And it will not change the minds of anybody

on this forum. Those who do change their minds are weak. Therefore, I will not

attempt to proove anything. All I will say is that I believe in creation and I believe in God. So, is who else is't afraid to share their beliefs?

Not that it matters....the word PROVE has only one...ONE...O...in it ...P-R-O-V-E.

Thank you for listening. original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

I guess I should post something 'on topic'...so here goes.

As per the last discussion I have laid out the logical thought process that disuades anyone from trying to prove God exists. Only fools jump at fools bait. (you still don't know who you are)

You either have Faith or you don't. It isn't something that anyone decides to have because they found 'proof'. The Bible says that Faith is the gift of God.

I personally believe that this thread was set up as a trap for a few certain unnamed members. If that is the case, then it is a thread whos sole purpose is to create 'flames for fools' and in my humble opinion should be closed. The whole C vs E has been talked to death on this forum and since it isn't possible to prove either side it should just be a 'agree to disagree' argument. It has even been argued in the Debate Forums. But ya'll just go right ahead and play. tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeking
....Whoa that's long....

Anyway, I have a little tidbit of evidence that may help. (young universe creationists)

The sun loses five feet off it's surface every hour.  If the universe was, say, one billion years old, then the sun would be so big that earth's oceans would boil, and life would not be able to form unless divine intervention is involved.  Also,

Every orbit decays gradually over time.  Take for instance the moon's orbit.  If the univerise as old as some old universe creationists, etc say, then the moon would be off in space somewhere.

Eat your vegies, kids.

446238[/snapback]

heres another little tidbit, the sun, moon, earth, the rest of the planets in the milky way are not the same age as the universe, they were formed over time, they can be relativly young compared to the universe meaning the sun does not have to be so unimaginably big to boil the earths oceans, and that the moons orbit has not decayed yet, saying our solar system is as old as the universe is like saying when you are born you are as old as your parents

also one other thing evolution can one day be proven, not anytime soon, but in a million years or so, the people living then will have proof of it, because since we know about the theory now, we can take note of changes over time (this note taking and evidence of course will all be based on how well our recorded data of today is preserved)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something Like Laughter

ohmy.gif some of you guys are ignorant of various aspects science.

commenting on what seeking said.

he is correct. our solar system is not as old as the universe. the sun is, probably, a 'second generation' star.

i dont know about the sun's surface boiling off.

the moon's orbit is not decaying. the moon is very slowly moving away from the earth at a rate of around 2 cm per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
aquatus, are you going to attempt to refute the claims in those two articles posted? if not, I can give it a shot (the first one, at least)...I'm pretty well-versed in astronomy/cosmology...

446322[/snapback]

No, don't get sucked into the blitzkrieg argument. Trying to overwhelm the opponent with a deluge of information, therefore making the required point-by-point response look tedious and childish, is a typical creationist tactic, although, to be fair, I do not think Strichar was intentionally doing that. Let's wait for a specific claim followed by specific supporting evidence.

Evo's, resist the temptation to counter the simplistic tidbits posted here. What we are looking for is a clear, logical argument from a creationist, not the standard little blurbs they have a habit of relying on.

Joc, you are wrong. The purpose of this thread is for creationist to get a glimpse at what it is to create and support a logical argument, instead of simply denying what others have studied, researched, and worked to accomplish. The manner in which I hope to do this is by requesting them to present their arguments in a manner which will require both a complete knowledge of both sides of the argument, instead of the singular side they are accustomed to, and a serious approach to critical thinking and logic.

Again, this thread has nothing to do with evolution. Do not post arguments against it or supporting it.

Creationists, this thread is specifically requesting a definition of Creationism, so that we may know where you are coming from, a clear theory, so that we know what you intend to support and how that support is significant to the definition you gave, and evidence supporting that theory, so that we may cross-check the credibility of it.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

Wouldnt they need to study the people who wrote the bible first. To show proof that these people were legit, They witnessed these things.

Im looking for credible evidence behind creationism and the people who wrote the books. i want to know about them, when they grew up, where they grew up ( with evidence to support it. Thats if you are going to put down quotes from scriptures. I believe we must find the Source Credible first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_hAiLO_

First we need to know what 'Creationism' even is, don't you agree?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Maybe that will stir some motivation into researching Creationism...and maybe motivate some people into giving some credible proof?

Remember...we aren't 'proving' creationism, but bringing it out of the dark...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good Ol Skeptico
I guess I should post something 'on topic'...so here goes.

As per the last discussion I have laid out the logical thought process that disuades anyone from trying to prove God exists. Only fools jump at fools bait. (you still don't know who you are)

You either have Faith or you don't. It isn't something that anyone decides to have because they found 'proof'. The Bible says that Faith is the gift of God.

I personally believe that this thread was set up as a trap for a few certain unnamed members. If that is the case, then it is a thread whos sole purpose is to create 'flames for fools' and in my humble opinion should be closed. The whole C vs E has been talked to death on this forum and since it isn't possible to prove either side it should just be a 'agree to disagree' argument. It has even been argued in the Debate Forums. But ya'll just go right ahead and play.

Oh snap! joc does it again! thumbsup.gif I just hope this trap wasn't for me... happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JennRose
It isn't completely pointless.  After all, you defined what you meant by creationism (even if it isn't the commonly understood version), and you came close to offering a theory, although you didn't quite get there.  If you would like to complete the last two requirements, those being a theory and evidence to support it, you may have something.

446310[/snapback]

I suppose my theory is that 'something' had to make life begin (I'm sorry, it's been many years since university biology, so my framing of a theory will be poor at best). There could have always been gases and elements and acids and so on, but none of these things are or become living with out some sort of 'divine' intervention. The nudge into life came from somewhere.

My evidence...hmmm... Well, as I stated, there is only so far we can break down a living being, no matter if it's a rose bush or a cocker spaniel. The cell is "the building block of life", but it's still very complex. A cell must be able to digest and respirate to suvive, so it had to come into being fully functioning. Even exceptions like some viruses, that don't contain much more than genetic material to reproduce, require a host cell to survive.

Ok, that's about all I've got on this. Please feel free to enlighten me if I have misconceptions, because I'm always ready to learn. original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insight

I see you are only willing to accept information based on your speciffic terms. Well, I don't believe the laws of God adhere to any of man, or the physical and mortal world. therefore, providing physical and factual evidence of creation will be difficult at best. Kind of like how like finding evolutionary evidence through spiritual means would be very difficult. Aquatus, it seems to want me to explain apples using orage theory.

Now, just to make it a little easier, here is what science would, at a minimum, need in order to consider a theory valid:

A.) A complete definition of The Theory of Creationism,

Creationism: The belief that a divine and loving God created all matter and life.

including specific phenomena and explanations of how that phenomena occurred, occurs, and will occur.

Speciffic Phenomena: Light, the creation of. God willed light into existence through his divine authority over all things. He said, "let there be light", and there was light.

B.) Compatibility with the five prerequisites of scientific methodology:

1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

There is no existing data that I have come accross that creationist theory can not make explination for.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

The bible has many phophecies which predict future events. God himself speaks to his followers, and reveals things about the future. It is called prophecy, or, a prophetic word. The creationnist belief can account for most any cause and effect we see in nature.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

Many people come to the conclusion that God created the universe. EVen alot of prominent athiest scientists have been swayed in light of evidence.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

Elaborate.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result, not vice-versa.

DNA has more exponential bits of data in it then the exponential bits of data which the entire universe contains. Thus, there is no possible way the DNA molecule could have come from material things, and chemical reactions of non-living things. To give perspective: The universe has 130-160 bits of exponential data in it. A single cell has 2000.

Define Creationism, and provide evidence to support it.

Creationism: The belief that a divine and loving God created the universe, and all things in it.

Evidence to support it: The Bible. The Bible accounts for a world wide flood. We find fossils of sea creatures in the high mountain tops to account for this.

The complexity of life. We have never been able to witness a random event that accounts for the complexity of life. If a tornado rages through a junk yard, it will never form a typewriter, or a jumbo jet. Never in even a billion years. Random events cannot create order. Order from chaos is not a percieved law of the universe. But rather, chaos from order is precieved in every single facet of out lives.

Lack of transitional form fossil evidence supports the theory that animals did not evolve from one another. This support creationism.

Lack of beneficial mutations observed to support evolutionary threory. Lack of the ability for a mutated, or cross species animal to be able to reproduce. This supports creationist theory.

Irreducibly complex systems: The bombairdier beetle has a system of chemical distribution in which if a single facet of it is changed or taken away, it will not function. This support the theory that these creatures were designed, and did not "evolve" to be that way.

Dinosaurs described in the Biblical passeges of Job; See the Leviathan, and the Behemoth. These were described before modern archeology unearthed fossil evidence of dinosaurs. This supports the bibles validity. And thus, supports creationist theory.

The circle of the earth is also described in Job, long before we discovered that the earth was round. This supports the Bible's validity.

The scripture stating that the God hung the earth upon nothing. This scripture being written before we ever left our atmosphere and observed the earth being held in space by gravitational orbit.

Again, the disproving consists or saying why theres no evidence to support evolution. If theres no evidence to support evolution, theres still no evidence to support creationism.

Perhaps this logic is what is preventing you from discovering the truth. It really makes very little sense, you realize. Trying to prove creationism, as if evolution never existed, is a faulty path. Why would we seek to discuss light without darkness? Can you really explain what white is without black?

What is high without low?

Great topic. But we seem to have trouble getting the ball rolling here. For the interest of discusion I shall put away my christian believes(temporarily).

One of my bad habits is gambling. So I might start the ball rolling with looking at odds.

With regards to recent scientific mapping of the human genome. It would present an almost infinite odds at the possibility that we were built by chance. Thus I would place my money on the odds of purposeful design.

This purposeful design may be a creator or creators,

Anyone want to roll the dice?

Agreed. Good point.

Sorry, but thats not creationism, thats intelligent design.

Visit nmsr.com and ask Dave what he thinks about intellegent design. He swears up and down it is religios creationism, and therefore, should not be taught in schools.

If you believe in Creationism, but do not claim it is real, or do not claim to have evidence or proof, this thread is not intended for you.

What in god's name is that suppost to mean? Do you think there are people out there who believe in Creationism, but don't believe it is real? Why would anyone believe in something that they didn't believe actually happened? Every Christian out there claims evidence and proof. Infact, alot of evolutionary scientists have been coverted because of the remarkable evidence they found, which they could no longer deny. It happens all the time. And it's beghinning to happen alot more with our advances of technology.

If you and me are made in gods image, and he made us ALL in his image, one would assume we would all have the Same set of instructinos in our body. Why do we not have the exact same genes?

Being made in the image, not the EXACT image. If you make a sculpture of a boat, you have made an image of a boat. the image can be smaller, or bigger. It can either float, or not float. If you take a picture of an airplane, you have made a piece of paper in the image of an airplane. But the paper will not fly passengers over the ocean.

Humans do have the sames sets of instructions in our body. We are genrally all created with legs, hands, eyes, and ears. But genetic diversity, which only an extremely small handful of genes account for, it what created variance in those features. Every ear will hear, however, every ear will look different, and hear slightly differently.

And JennRose, you said nothing is more simple than the cell. While I see what you were getting at, know that the single cell is one of the most complex interactions of chemicals ever observed. If you asked a person in roboticts to construct something similiar to the single cell, thay would laugh at you. The single cell is more complex than a large city, complete with waste management, imports and exports, and growth. Humans are able to get together and create a city, yet, the single cell is so complex, that all the humans in science are unable to construct one. Nothing human kind has ever done has even compared to the single cell.

In any case, Aquatus, you seem to only want to discuss things on your terms. I am tierd of these argumenst being controlled by you, and centered around you. While I appreciate what you are doing with this thread, know that my discussions will not abide by every rule you have set, nor to the certain logics you subscribe to. You seperate truth from fact, when truth is fact. You are able to throw enough words out there to cloud the issue, but it still stands that a truth is factual. Put it into whatever context you like, but it doesn't change things much.

Edited by Insight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Evo's, resist the temptation to counter the simplistic tidbits posted here. What we are looking for is a clear, logical argument from a creationist, not the standard little blurbs they have a habit of relying on.

Dont worry. If I've managed through the last 6 pages, I'll manage for a while longer tongue.gif

Creationism: The belief that a divine and loving God created all matter and life.

Question: Wouldnt that be the same as ID? You've got to be more specific as to your theory, not something that general. That'd be like me defining evolution as "how current species got here."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
There is no existing data that I have come accross that creationist theory can not make explination for.

must..resist.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JennRose
And JennRose, you said nothing is more simple than the cell. While I see what you were getting at, know that the single cell is one of the most complex interactions of chemicals ever observed. If you asked a person in roboticts to construct something similiar to the single cell, thay would laugh at you. The single cell is more complex than a large city, complete with waste management, imports and exports, and growth. Humans are able to get together and create a city, yet, the single cell is so complex, that all the humans in science are unable to construct one. Nothing human kind has ever done has even compared to the single cell.

446591[/snapback]

Yes, I realize that a cell isn't simple in terms of composition or function, and I know you understand what my point was. I elaborated a bit on the post right above yours.

Anyway, can anyone argue my one point? This isn't necessarily a challenge, I've just never heard a convincing explanation other than creation for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
The cell is "the building block of life", but it's still very complex. A cell must be able to digest and respirate to suvive, so it had to come into being fully functioning. Even exceptions like some viruses, that don't contain much more than genetic material to reproduce, require a host cell to survive.

JennRose, The cell is the building block of life in the same sense that the cinder block is a building block of construction. Neither one was the first functional unit of its kind. I urge you to read the Evo. Vs. Cre debate for further...

Ahhg, now I'm doing it!

Okay, Insight, close, but not yet:

I see you are only willing to accept information based on your speciffic terms.

No, these are not my terms. These are the requirements of science, and they apply to every single theory in the scientific world. No exceptions. The theory of Creationism does not get a free pass. If people wish to claim that this theory is credible and that it has evidence, both of which are terms of science, then it must meet the requirements that all credible theories do.

If it is a belief to you, then not a problem; people, stop posting that it is a beleif and doesn't require faith. We got that. This thread is for those who repeatedly stated that they have evidence of creationism. Should I start naming names?

Creationism: The belief that a divine and loving God created all matter and life.

Are you sure you want to tackle a topic that wide? You don't want to narrow it down a bit? As it stands, your theory that supports this and that you have evidence for would be

Light, the creation of. God willed light into existence through his divine authority over all things. He said, "let there be light", and there was light.

That's a lot. You have to show how light was most likely created and how God and nothing else was most likely responsible. You still need both an explanation of how it happened, and evidence to support it. Incidentally, saying "God did it." is no more an explanation than saying "The flashlight did it." Do not mistake your hypothesis for an explanation.

1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data.

There is no existing data that I have come accross that creationist theory can not make explination for.

Insight, you are talking about light. The only thing you need to worry about is light. Explain light and how its properties support the existance of God.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

The bible has many phophecies which predict future events. God himself speaks to his followers, and reveals things about the future. It is called prophecy, or, a prophetic word. The creationnist belief can account for most any cause and effect we see in nature.

Light, Insight, light. How does you explanation predict what we should expect light to do in a given situation?

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

Many people come to the conclusion that God created the universe. EVen alot of prominent athiest scientists have been swayed in light of evidence.

What we are talking about is a logical path from the evidence to the result, not about how many people believe in this or that. That is one single series of steps that any person, regardless of race, gender, or bias, can follow. As many believers like to tell us, this is not the case with God. Everyone must find their own way to God.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

Elaborate.

In order to avoid being circular and incapable of being proved wrong, a theory must include a manner it which it can be shown to be false. For example (example), the argument that God can only be seen by the truly faithful is unfalsifiable. Those who believe in God can see him, and those who cannot are not truly faithful. There is no way to show that God isn't actually there to see. An example of a falsifiable theory is The Pythagorean Theorum. It states that, in a right triangle, the sums of the square of both sides will equal the sum of the hypotenuse. This can be falsified through the simple discovery of a right triangle in which the sums of the square of both sides do not equal the sum of the hypotenuse.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event i.e. a logical path must lead from the data to the result, not vice-versa.

DNA has more exponential bits of data in it then the exponential bits of data which the entire universe contains. Thus, there is no possible way the DNA molecule could have come from material things, and chemical reactions of non-living things. To give perspective: The universe has 130-160 bits of exponential data in it. A single cell has 2000.

Light, light, light.

Cre's, the entire purpose of the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology is to validate the credibility of a scientific theory. That means that they are all applied to each single theory, not to every single idea that comes along.

Evo's, once more, do not get sucked into the blitzkriegs arguments like Insight makes. I know he is doing it because we have already discussed that at length, as well as the difference between fact and truth, so he has no excuse to be pretending that he doesn't know what is being referred to.

Once more:

One definition of Creationism.

One theory supporting that definition.

Evidence to support that one theory.

Just one. If you want to do flooding, fine. If you want to do light, great, but pick one and follow the same rules that apply to every single other theory in the scientific community.

Cripes, this wasn't even supposed to be the hard part of this thread!

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
Cripes, this wasn't even supposed to be the hard part of this thread!

Well, you knew you had to break their habits, didnt you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke

One definition of Creationism.

Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that or [a] the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (cool.gif Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution

One theory supporting that definition.

young earth theory because earth was created 6000 yeas ago

the flood theory noah's ark

man and dinosaurs

Evidence to support that one theory.

young earth theory

Mineral halos: Dr. Gentry discovered in the late 1970's countless halos found in biotite and flourite, which are minerals found within some granites. These "are beautiful microspheres of coloration produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium

The existence of the halos thus is convincing evidence that the granite rocks (and the rest of the world) were created instantaneously - a type of flash freezing

Pressure of oil deposits

if underground oil was as old as geologists claim that its pressure would have dissipated long ago. The fact that oil is found under pressure indicates that it is 10,000 years or less old. Presumably all of the natural gas would have escaped as well if the earth was old

Earth's shape: The increase of the earth's equatorial bulge would have flattened it out into a spinning pancake if it were really 5 billion years old

Evolutionists say that it takes millions of years to form a thick layer of sedimentary rock. But when Mount St. Helen’s erupted in 1980, a few hundred feet of sediment was laid down in a few days. These layers are seen stratified into many layers, just as sedimentary rock appears. This does not prove that the earth is young. However, it does show that layers of rock can form in days rather than millions of years

the flood theory noah's ark

populair claim: Most civilisations of those times also speak of a flood

One line of evidence in favor of the Flood comes from the preponderance of turbidites, which the Flood would have generated. Kurt wrote an excellent article on turbidites which revealed that 30-50% of all the world's strata are turbidites. Turbidites, also known as graded beds, are quickly deposited from rapidly moving, widespread, sediment-laden turbidity currents. A turbidity current is an underwater landslide of sorts. Turbidity currents occur when huge, underwater piles of unconsolidated sediments break loose and begin rushing down the slopes of ocean floors and lake beds. Turbidites are called graded beds because there is a continuum of particle sizes within a turbidite layer going from bottom to top, gradually decreasing in size. Before geologists recognized the true nature of turbidites, it was assumed that they were formed by gradual deposition over thousands or millions of years. This faulty assumption is the fruit of uniformitarian thinking. If this were true, no appreciable fossilization could take place, because animal remains must be quickly buried before scavengers, decay, and chemical decomposition can destroy them. For instance, what happened to all the buffalo bones on the Great Plains of the United States?

second line of evidence pointing to the Flood is the presence of the widespread conglomerates which cover as much as a million square miles with an almost uniformly thick layer of sediment. The constituents making up a conglomerate "may range in size from large boulders to particles as small as garden peas...More often than not conglomerates are poorly sorted because the openings between the large gravel particles contain sand or mud." [Tarbuck, p. 137] Large boulders require large floods to move them and dump them unsorted with smaller gravels. We covered conglomerates in Footprints in Stone. These conglomerates represent another major part of the geologic record which must be interpreted as the result of catastrophic flood conditions

A third line of evidence for the Flood comes from an important article written by John Woodmorappe on which this article is based. [Woodmorappe] Cyclothems are the result of major flood conditions. Because of this, the study of cyclothems is important to us who believe in the Flood. Evolutionists and creationists believe almost all sedimentary rock come from water. Evolutionists tend to interpret the facts to favor evolution and discredit creation. Contrary to the insistence of many evolutionists, there is no line of evidence which rules out the Flood, only lines of reasoning blinded to alternative explanations by a dogmatic evolutionary philosophy.

man and dinosaurs

many civilisations speak of "dragons". these dragon resemble dinosaurs. this is strange? could the dragons be dinosaurs?

the famous footprints of man and dinosaurs walking together.

http://users.abilene.com/~wgoforth/dino.htm

Aside from historical accounts, existence of legends and various cave paintings around the world depicting man and dinosaur, there is also the existence of human footprints in the same layer as, and sometimes next to, dinosaur tracks. Perhaps the most famous site for this is that of Glen Rose, TX in the famous Paluxy Riverbed.

i found this from several creationists scientists. i found it interesting

Edited by Hotoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Yes! Finally, a clear, concise, supported post concerning the validity of creationism!

Although, strangely enough, not from a creationist...but anyway...

That is how a good argument should begin! So far, we have just seen bits and pieces. Strichar provided a good study, but he didn't tell us what he was defining as creationism or what the study was meant to support. As it is, the only thing the study told us was that the lava domes in question were younger than previously thought. Is this refuting Old Earth, or dating methods, or is there a signifigance of this location to the account of creation? All that needs to be addressed.

Insight sort of gave a definition, and made an attempt to provide a theory to support it, but failed to provide evidence for it.

Surely, with all the talk we hear of Creation Science, there must be someone out there who is able to form a scientific argument? Is this all there is to Creationism? Is the denial of evolution such an enormous part of it that creationism has nothing to support it if it is gone? Can it not be supported by any argument other than biblical text?

Seven pages and we are only just (hopefully) finished explaining to the creationists what it takes simply to present a credible theory. Can anyone who supports Creation Science, or who refers to themselves as Creation Scientists, or who simply claims that creationism is real and they have evidence to prove it, please post it in the manner that we have clearly delineated? Please note that we haven't even ruled out anything as being credible or non-credible yet. All we are doing is asking people to define exactly what it is they are talking about. This is really not that difficult a concept to grasp. Focus on one argument and explain it throughly.

One Definition.

One Thery supporting the definition.

Evidence supporting the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unorthodox Thesis

Alternative to evolution: creation

Alternative to creation: evolution

I am aware that this topic is not about falsifying evolution.... but!

In order to see the alternative to evolution, we must also look at the

alternative to creation. No? I am a believer in God. original.gif

"So, is Evolution a Creation Myth? It depends on how you define the words "creation" and "myth." Sometimes the word creation implies the existence of a creator. In other contexts, however, the word creation implies the thing has come into existence or been created and how it came into existence or was created. Perhaps it would be better to say, therefore, "Evolution is a myth about origins -- about the universe, how it came to exist and how it came to take on the attributes we now observe."

What about the word "myth"? To many, the word myth means a story or fable that is not true, that is more exaggerated fantasy than reality. This in not a good definition if you are a myth scholar, who wants to view all stories as myth without getting bogged down in a debate about whether a particular myth is true or not. This kind of myth scholar tries to use the word myth as a key whereby he or she can unlock the meanings behind all sorts of stories. Thus, the definition of myth I prefer is a definition that I developed from the 1989 New College Edition of "The American Heritage Dictionary": myth is "any real or fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions" and ideas. Using this definition, we can see that evolution can indeed be seen as a modern creation myth. By calling evolution a myth, we don't necessarily mean that evolution is not true. For example, I can say that the life of President Abraham Lincoln, born in a log cabin, is an example of a hero myth because it shares one of the important qualities that many hero myths have: a man of lowly, humble origins rises to great heights as a leader, is tested in a dramatic fashion, and becomes an international icon of mythic proportions. Does this mean that Lincoln was not the 16th President of the United States or never was born in a log cabin? No, of course not.

Paleontologist, Dr. Leonard Krishtalka, professor of paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, asserted in the PBS documentary, "The Creationist Controversy" (May 31, 1995) that evolution is not a creation myth because the theory of evolution can change over time but myths do not change over time. His comment is ridiculously ignorant for several reasons.

First, while the details of evolution theory can indeed change over time, the basic concept behind evolution -- that the universe came into being through purely natural or physical means involving some kind of random process and that human beings evolved from "lower" forms of life through these same means and through a similar process -- remains the same. Second, it is not true that myths do not change over time. For instance, let's look at the four gospels in the New Testament. The four books were written over a period of 10 to 40 years (some say as many as 60 years) by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each book, if read in succession, presents a different perspective on the life of Jesus. John, for instance, contains more lengthy, unique descriptions of Jesus teaching theology to his disciples and of Jesus debating the Jewish leaders. In John, therefore, we receive a new perspective on the ministry of Jesus. Even so, we get the same basic story that is in the other three books.

Some people might object to me looking at the four gospels as myth. They think the word "myth" always means a story is not true. If you use the definition of myth above that I have used, however, then this is not true. I can still call the four gospels a Christian myth without having to call them factually false. Like Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ was born of lowly humble origins but he rose to great heights as a religious leader, was tested in a dramatic fashion, and became an international figure of mythic proportions. His story appeals to our consciousness. It embodies cultural, even moral and philosophical, ideals, and it gives expression to deep, commonly felt emotions and ideas. Does this mean that Jesus Christ is not the unique one and only Son of God, second member of the Holy Trinity? No, absolutely not.

In the same way, evolution is a "creation myth" in this specialized sense, regardless of its correspondence to the facts, because it provides the vehicle for the story of how our society came to be what it is. Against the odds of randomness, chance, and time, evolution delivered us to our current state of ordered complexity.

[Dr. Krishtalka did not deal with Dr. Philip Johnson's logical criticisms of evolutionary theory or of the academic discrimination practiced against alternative origin theories. His avoidance of logic and the facts typified the "Creationist Controversy" program's failure to come down of its high horse, deal with the issues in an intelligent and accurate manner, and to stop trying to miscast opponents' positions and evidence. This program did not examine the creation/evolution debate objectively by focusing on the scientific evidence and its interpretation. Dr. Krishtalka's comments on myth were superficial and false. It is sad to see such a display of ignorance in our fellow men.] (cpd/pst)

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God" (John 3:19-21 NIV)." answers.org

Edited by Norman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
Is this refuting Old Earth, or dating methods, or is there a signifigance of this location to the account of creation?

To support the genesis creation account we should first look at the theories given by modern science. science claims that earth is billions years old(and humans older then 6000) which means that the genesis creation account is wrong. so tosupport the genesis account we must first look at the age of earth and what is known. The dating methods are innaccurate according to creationist scientist because an killed seal was dated to be older then 1200 years. this is just an example of the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

Surely, with all the talk we hear of Creation Science, there must be someone out there who is able to form a scientific argument?

now here is the flaw of creationism. they try to justify the bible yet they have no proof that god created(lets not start the evo argument) man except the holy books.

i noticed the way creationist scientist only counter the old earth/ extinction of dinosaurs/ evolution/ but they do not proof in any way that a god created man.

simply put there is no proof for that. i visited countless sites and none explain it

there is no scientific explanation of the god creation. i just came to that conclusion. if you look at the many creationist scientist websites you only see they are fighting evolution and science.

creation science is here to counter the evolution/old earth/big bang/dinosaur/fossil/ science

it is safe to say that they cannot show proof for creation itself

lets still leave evolution out of this. this is not the topic to 'proof' that

http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs

http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

Edited by Hotoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unorthodox Thesis
science claims that earth is billions years old(and humans older then 6000) which means that the genesis creation account is wrong.

The earth is old, but science does't back up that humans are older than 6000 years.

this is just an example of the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

You know what else is inaccurate? Radiometric dating. Yes.

....And your knowledge about the genesis.

i noticed the way creationist scientist only counter the old earth/ extinction of dinosaurs/ evolution/ but they do not proof in any way that a god created man.

If evolution did't then who/what did?

Edited by Norman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Athenian

Can we not all just agree that we were created and evolved over time...? huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.