What are the evidence of Creationism?

[Maetryx]

It is unfortunate that I found this thread after it was long enough to have attracted a lot of absurd statements, some of them supposedly "helpful" to the creationist viewpoint.

Creationists don't believe that creationism is a faith based (i.e. phony) system that stands opposed to science. Indeed, if something is true, then it corresonds to reality. And science is generally concerned with reality, typically the measurement thereof. If creation is a real event in history, then science should be concerned with it as well.

Obviously, no one grows up in a vacuum and comes up with a set of philosphies, and then enters society and compares them to tradition and common knowledge. So this is my disclosure statement. Yes, I'm a Christian. Yes I've been one for a long time. Yes Christians are more likely to believe in creationism than evolution, and some believe the two are compatible.

Nevertheless, I have been philosphically and scientifically convinced that this universe was created a finite time in the past, probably on the order of 20 billion years ago. This means I'm an "old earth creationist" as opposed to "young earth creationists" that believe that the earth was created rougly 10,000 years ago. "Young earth creationists" get all the press, in the same way that Muslim terrorists get all the press. They're the most controversial within their group.

One of the evidences for Creationism is the remanants of the Big Bang. The more scientists prove the Big Bang event, the happier it makes us "old earth creationists". The Big Bang corresponds very nicely to the creation event.

But the Big Bang alone is not a creation if there is no Creator. So inevitably, trying to argue Creationism will lead one to argue that there is a Creator. In short, we must look to the arguments for the existence of God. These are philosphical arguments based on reason. If you are not careful, you will rebut these arguments in haste using fallacious logic, or simply attack the messenger, or the group that the messenger represents. None of these things will affect the arguments.

And if you're not careful, you will read some of these ineffective rebuttals and believe them because it is more convenient than to dicsover that you owe an allegiance to a Creator. If you decide that what I write is "just words", then you are being selective, because words are the building blocks of ideas and reason.

1) The Ontological Argument: argument from being. Ontology is the study of existence or being. This argument has many forms, but one of the more famous arguments is stated like this: God is the greatest being that one can imagine. He has all the power, all the knowledge, and is all good. Our mind cannot conceive of God as NOT existing because it is a logical necessity that the being than which none greater can be imagined, exists. Because if the being that which none greater can be imagined did NOT exist, then we could (ridiculously) imagine an even GREATER being that had all of the qualities of the non-existent version, but also possessed the property of existence. But then we would have imagined a being greater than the being that which none greater could be conceived. Since such a thing is logically impossible, God must exist.

2) Teleological Argument: argument from design. Sometimes known as the watchmaker's argument. Basically, we find such specific design in the universe and in natural phenomenon, that it is irrational to believe that it came about by random chance. When one finds a watch lying in the woods, we can tell by it's nature that it did not arise on its own. By analogy, we find that life and nature is designed to function and propagate to such a high degree that it is irrational to believe that it did not have a Designer.

3) The Cosmological Argument: argument from cause and effect. Play a game with a 3 year old. They ask you "Why?" and you answer. Not satisfied, they ask "Why that answer?" and you tell the answer to that question. Ultimately, after several rounds of "Why?" you arrive at a point where you either say "Just because," implying that there is a first cause, or you say "Because God made it that way", in which you name the First Cause. By definition, every effect has a cause (it wouldn't be an effect otherwise). But since an actual infinite series cannot exist in the universe (finite time-space), there must be a First Cause. An uncaused beginner. There must be one "thing" that is not itself an effect. The theist believes the the uncaused beginner is God.

Chew on those for a while. Words mean things. If you answer hastily, it's likely you'll argue wrongly.

 

[petrek]

The sure word of Prophecy proves the Bible is true, which in turn allows one to trust that the Biblical account of Creation is also true.
And while proving that the evolutionary ideology upon which we were raised is not set in stone does not alternately prove that creation is true (as is attested to by the fact that learned atheists exist who do not hold to the doctrine of evolution). It does open the door to the possibility that the God of the Bible did create everything out of nothing 6,000 ya (Something which absolutely could not have happened if one holds to the dogmatic and stone cold belief that the world is billions of years old as is taught in schools, etc.).It should also cause one to seriously consider why they are knowingly taught lies, when they could have just as easily and more beneficially been taught to think for themselves and to make up their own mind based on the evidence which exists.

D

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

?

You are confusing evolution vs. creationism with abiogenesis.

?????
You are more than welcome to explain abiogenesis to me and everyone else that does not know what it is.

Abiogenesis

Evolution is just that, life evolving. It does not explain how life began in the first place.
Many people who believe in God also believe in evolution, and such thinking is not actually against the Bible. Not every Christian is a Fundamentalist. If you are going to argue evolution, you ought to at least understand what evolution means, don't ya think?
Anyway, to some people, evidence for evolution can also be considered evidence for creation. OR you can see conflicting thinking in both camps. For example, some people may say that the factual existence of sea shells on top of the Himalayas is evidence of the Great Flood, while others could say that science proves how the Himalayas rose from the sea floor through millions of years of geological movement.
As no one really knows, the smart people (in my experience) keep their opinions open and the idiots have closed minds and ruthlessly root for whichever side they have come to prefer in this Ford-vs.-Chevy-like argument.

edit: couple of typos

Thank you. I did not what the WORD stood for but I've heard about the meaning of it.
A quick Google search on Abiogenesis resulted in this and this .
Very interesting to read.
I did not read all of it but what I read just shoved that creationists have got the key things all wrong.

As far as I am concerned Abiogenesis and Evolution together makes sence. When creationists argue agains abiogenesis they simplify and skip important parts of it.

There is still nothing in this thread to support creationists. Sorry

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What are the evidence of Creationism?

Every argument that I've ever heard in support of Creationism has actually been an attack on the Theory of Evolution. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence in favor of Creationism, and certainly none which passes muster under the scientific method.

To answer the first point, there's not really any "evidence," unless of course God comes down and gives an interview on CNN. I would presume that would be relatively conclusive if it did happen though.

To answer the second point, you're framing things in the wrong way. You're trying to impose the framework of science onto an article of faith, which by definition isn't going to conform to the scientific method. I couldn't "prove" that love exists under the scientific method either, but do you use that same reasoning to say it doesn't exist?

Since i don't think you'll find many people who disagree with the idea of natural selection and adaptation regardless of their POV on creationism, the question ultimately boils down to one ultimately unknowable mystery: whether life arose from abiogenesis or divine creation. By all means, find a definitive proof (or disproof) of either position if you can. There's a guaranteed Nobel prize waiting for the person able to do that, no matter which answer it ends up being.

beautifully said!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Woohoo... Troll thread!

:disgust:

?

You are confusing evolution vs. creationism with abiogenesis.

?????
You are more than welcome to explain abiogenesis to me and everyone else that does not know what it is.

Abiogenesis

Evolution is just that, life evolving. It does not explain how life began in the first place.
Many people who believe in God also believe in evolution, and such thinking is not actually against the Bible. Not every Christian is a Fundamentalist. If you are going to argue evolution, you ought to at least understand what evolution means, don't ya think?
Anyway, to some people, evidence for evolution can also be considered evidence for creation. OR you can see conflicting thinking in both camps. For example, some people may say that the factual existence of sea shells on top of the Himalayas is evidence of the Great Flood, while others could say that science proves how the Himalayas rose from the sea floor through millions of years of geological movement.
As no one really knows, the smart people (in my experience) keep their opinions open and the idiots have closed minds and ruthlessly root for whichever side they have come to prefer in this Ford-vs.-Chevy-like argument.

edit: couple of typos

Thank you. I did not what the WORD stood for but I've heard about the meaning of it.
A quick Google search on Abiogenesis resulted in this and this .
Very interesting to read.
I did not read all of it but what I read just shoved that creationists have got the key things all wrong.

As far as I am concerned Abiogenesis and Evolution together makes sence. When creationists argue agains abiogenesis they simplify and skip important parts of it.

There is still nothing in this thread to support creationists. Sorry

I think you have missed some important points.
Without God, abiogenesis would mean that life began from non-living matter out of nothing, something even most scientists don't wish to contemplate. It makes "sense" only if you have a strong and illogical desire to deny any possible existence of God, something scientists are supposed to steer away from, remember?

Oh well, hey whatever floats your boat. But I think you should realize that when you already know the answer you're looking for, it's not very hard to find it.

edit: Maetryx, great post.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Science is not in the business of proving or disproving God. Science cannot comment on that. Whether there is a God or not is anybody?s choice to believe or not. There is no proof one way or the other. God may have created the universe and it evolved. I don't know. I do know there is a body of scientific evidence gathered from rocks that says evolution happened. I call that kind of thing a fact. The rocks are a time machine. But for Christ's sakes, evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It just means that one variation of interpretation of the Bible is out to lunch.

I agree that I stretched it a bit.
It all basically boils down to an argument about what we know and what we believe. What we know comes from science, what some people believe comes from religion which in it self is not a fact and can not be proved.
The only way a Creationist can argue in favor of creation is to argue against the prof/evidence/fossils/C14 method and so on presented by science.

 

[Moonbeam]

1 I don't mind being hasty and wrong so I'll jump right in. I can imagine a still greater being than one who must exist and that is one who has the option. Since I see no sign of Him, I figure I know Hs decision.

2. There is no design other than that which adheres to the properties of nature. The laws of nature create design. The presence of laws or properties does not imply a lawmaker. It does cause wonder.

3. If there is an uncaused cause then lets start at the beginning and not before. Why unnecessarily complicate things. Just say the universe is without cause. It is an uncaused cause. It created itself.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Great post Maetryx. Now I understand your point of view.

Correct me if I misunderstood you but what you are saying is (basically) that 'Creation' in this case is the 'Big Bang' and from there Evolution (and Abiogenesis) took over and developed whatever was created.

Your point of view makes more sense to me because it does not exclude evolution. If God exists or not doesn't really matter in this case because it's all about what existed 'before' the Big Bang.


In this case i understand the concept of creation. But I have no understanding whatsoever for the creationists that claims the earth is 10000 years old and yadda yadda yadda.
That is simply not true and it has been proven wrong so many times.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It created itself.

A belief that to my line of thinking requires more faith than to believe in God.
Anyway, we are small beings who exist in a vast universe that we have almost no actual knowledge of. We are like the 3 blind mice feeling the sides of our cage and, in our vanity, proclaiming that we know what exists on the other side. We don't know. None of us do. But we'll all find out soon enough, so I think it wise to hold our vanity in check until that time.

 

[FrustratedUser]

I think you have missed some important points.
Without God, abiogenesis would mean that life began from non-living matter out of nothing, something even most scientists don't wish to contemplate. It makes "sense" only if you have a strong and illogical desire to deny any possible existence of God, something scientists are supposed to steer away from, remember?

Oh well, hey whatever floats your boat. But I think you should realize that when you already know the answer you're looking for, it's not very hard to find it.

Naaah,
If you read a bit deeper in the links I provided, and look at the references you'll see that abiogenesis can be explained with biochemistry, which is an exact science.
It also says that the creationist that tried to dispute it used statistics and probability in the wrong way when arguing. They also skipped fundamental parts of abiogenesis when arguing against it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

I think you have missed some important points.
Without God, abiogenesis would mean that life began from non-living matter out of nothing, something even most scientists don't wish to contemplate. It makes "sense" only if you have a strong and illogical desire to deny any possible existence of God, something scientists are supposed to steer away from, remember?

Oh well, hey whatever floats your boat. But I think you should realize that when you already know the answer you're looking for, it's not very hard to find it.

Naaah,
If you read a bit deeper in the links I provided, and look at the references you'll see that abiogenesis can be explained with biochemistry, which is an exact science.
It also says that the creationist that tried to dispute it used statistics and probability in the wrong way when arguing. They also skipped fundamental parts of abiogenesis when arguing against it.

Let me put this is bold print:
I think you should realize that when you already know the answer you're looking for, it's not very hard to find it.
I think that can be used to describe both yourself and how a process which scientists have NEVER duplicated (i.e. the creation of life from non-living matter) can be called an "exact science."

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

I think you have missed some important points.
Without God, abiogenesis would mean that life began from non-living matter out of nothing, something even most scientists don't wish to contemplate. It makes "sense" only if you have a strong and illogical desire to deny any possible existence of God, something scientists are supposed to steer away from, remember?

Oh well, hey whatever floats your boat. But I think you should realize that when you already know the answer you're looking for, it's not very hard to find it.

Naaah,
If you read a bit deeper in the links I provided, and look at the references you'll see that abiogenesis can be explained with biochemistry, which is an exact science.
It also says that the creationist that tried to dispute it used statistics and probability in the wrong way when arguing. They also skipped fundamental parts of abiogenesis when arguing against it.

Let me put this is bold print:
I think you should realize that when you already know the answer you're looking for, it's not very hard to find it.
I think that can be used to describe both yourself and how a process which scientists have NEVER duplicated (i.e. the creation of life from non-living matter) can be called an "exact science."

Well, that goes for everyone. Right!
I am trying to understand how creationists think and so far the only argument that made any sense was presented by Maetryx..

How can you expect scientists to recreate a process that took (could have taken) millions of years in just a few years using test tubes?

 

[Moonbeam]

PSYWVic, if you want to hold your vanity in check do it without using the first person plural after quoting me, or implying who has a greater faith. The notion of positing an uncreated creator who turns around and creates a universe is one step more unnecessarily vane than postulating a universe. You don't have to know anything to know that. 1. An uncreated God? I can not comprehend existence without non-existence, and I have never see God. 2. An uncreated universe? I can not comprehend existence without non-existence. I see the universe. I'll take two. Seems like the more modest choice.

 

[datalink7]

1) The Ontological Argument: argument from being. Ontology is the study of existence or being. This argument has many forms, but one of the more famous arguments is stated like this: God is the greatest being that one can imagine. He has all the power, all the knowledge, and is all good. Our mind cannot conceive of God as NOT existing because it is a logical necessity that the being than which none greater can be imagined, exists. Because if the being that which none greater can be imagined did NOT exist, then we could (ridiculously) imagine an even GREATER being that had all of the qualities of the non-existent version, but also possessed the property of existence. But then we would have imagined a being greater than the being that which none greater could be conceived. Since such a thing is logically impossible, God must exist.

I think you explained this WAY wrong because it sounds idiotic to me. It is a logical necessity that the than which none greater can imagine, exists? Who says? And why is is "ridiculous" to imgagine a greater being than one which doesn't exist? I really don't see how it is logically impossible. I am an atheist. I concieve as god not existing. In fact, I truly %100 percent am sure of this (though I could be wrong). Ok, now lets see. I'm going to "imagine an even GREATER being that had all the qualities of the non-existent version, but also possesed the property of existence." Hmm... yup, just did it. Whoop-de-doo. Seriously, I don't get this one. I can't even argue against it because I don't get why it even works. Perhaps you can explain it to me?<--Actually being serious here not trying to be insulting.

2) Teleological Argument: argument from design. Sometimes known as the watchmaker's argument. Basically, we find such specific design in the universe and in natural phenomenon, that it is irrational to believe that it came about by random chance. When one finds a watch lying in the woods, we can tell by it's nature that it did not arise on its own. By analogy, we find that life and nature is designed to function and propagate to such a high degree that it is irrational to believe that it did not have a Designer.

The teleological (a study of design or process in nature) argument for God?s existence offered is as follows:

1. The world is like a machine
2. Machines are made by humans according to plans
3. Like effects have like causes
4. Therefore the world was designed/created [by a godlike figure]

To the initial glance, the argument appears to follow in logical form. A test shows that the premises one, two and three support the conclusion four. The argument is formed in a linear fashion, with each premise following from the other. This is a valid logical structure.

This argument is supported with an analogy to show that the world can be likened to a machine. The basic analogous example that is given (the case of a watch) is roughly as follows. If one were to find a watch on the ground, it would be safe to assume that the pieces of the watch did not form by themselves. It can be inferred by the apparent make of the watch that it was designed for some purpose. Even if the observer has no clue what the watch is or does, that does not mean that they cannot appreciate that some hand created it. And just because it might be wrong at times, does not preclude the idea that it had some creator. So it is with the world. Even if one cannot see the entire purpose of the world, or understand its creation, we can still see that it is a working machine designed by some greater being.

But further dissection reveals some hidden assumptions and faulty analogies that would give rise to error in the case being made. The first buried assumption is there is a followed organization in the world. This postulation allows the argument to claim the analogy, ?The world is like a machine.? But how is one to assume that there is structure to the world? It does not necessarily follow that because there is a working order in nature?s interactions that there is a designed structural build to specify that order. It can just as easily be argued that the natural order of the world is a result from the interaction of its parts over the millennia, just as the many grains of sand (which are different upon close inspection) arrange themselves to fit when poured into a jar. In fact, an even better comparison of life would be to a battle or war. This would not suggest a creator, but rather individual and independent parts of random chance working out an order by natural trial and error. Since the assumption ?there is a followed organization in the world? cannot be, in truth, assumed, the claim that is supports (the analogy ?The world is like a machine?) is brought down from being true to becoming opinion. And this, in turn, brings into question the soundness of the whole case being made. For opinion has little value in a reasoned and logical argument.

Also, it appears to be arguing from an empiricist point of view. That is, it places value on evidence gathered from the senses and experience. It is stated that it can be seen how the world operates as a machine. That it can be broken down into small parts that interact as if designed. And through our observation we can see that there is suggested (or, as the argument would have us believe, shown) that there must indeed be a designer since a workable machine cannot spring from itself. But it is a well-documented fact that the senses can be fooled. And how do we know if our senses are not being fooled at any one point? Perhaps the experienced ?evidence? that he is pointing out is just shadows on the wall of the cave of a false reality, to take the allegory of Plato?s Cave. What we perceive to be true might very well in fact be only the illusion of reality. And then how can one, knowing this (that the senses can be fooled) argue that through our senses and experience we can prove god? Would this not prove to be flawed? Should not a large proposition such as the presence of a deity be proved with rational logic, which is irrefutable (when used correctly) and is not under the fickle influence of our senses?

The main analogy of the argument by design (this being that the world is like a man made machine) is faulty. As you extend the metaphor from the basic machine outward to the world it loses its relevancy. An example of this is the blood flow in a human. You can analogize this with fish and animals, but this is a presupposition (though a strong one). But as you try to extrapolate this to other parts of the world (plants and such), you lose the analogy in imperfection and inaccuracy. So it is the same with the analogy of the clock being similar to the working of the world.

In actuality, the theologian disproves their own basic belief when they put forth the argument by design as it is argued by way of the machine metaphor. By doing so, they humanize God to a degree that no longer could you call God all-powerful. By ascribing God the characteristics of a human mechanic or inventor, you have then given God all the weaknesses that those people posses. Thus, you are limiting God to finite power. Because human experience is limiting, it would be impossible for us to conceptualize whether the construction of the world can be attributed to a human like creator.

The teleological argument by design, perhaps the most oft used argument for the existence of God, is unreasonable in its current form. It holds to many false assumptions and fallacious claims. Therefore, it is not in any form logical proof.

3) The Cosmological Argument: argument from cause and effect. Play a game with a 3 year old. They ask you "Why?" and you answer. Not satisfied, they ask "Why that answer?" and you tell the answer to that question. Ultimately, after several rounds of "Why?" you arrive at a point where you either say "Just because," implying that there is a first cause, or you say "Because God made it that way", in which you name the First Cause. By definition, every effect has a cause (it wouldn't be an effect otherwise). But since an actual infinite series cannot exist in the universe (finite time-space), there must be a First Cause. An uncaused beginner. There must be one "thing" that is not itself an effect. The theist believes the the uncaused beginner is God.

Chew on those for a while. Words mean things. If you answer hastily, it's likely you'll argue wrongly.

There really isn't much of an arguement for or against the Cosmological argument. The Theist believes the first "why" is God, the Atheist believes it is something else or "doesn't know." This is a matter of personal belief, and isn't really an "arguemtn" per se IMO.