Creationism and the problem of physical evidence

[dayton]

Evolutionists love to complain about the lack of evidence for Creation(ism). The reason there is limited empirical evidence for Creation is because science only deals with the natural, and the Creation of the earth was a supernatural event.

God Created the earth in six days 6-10,000 years ago, but not through evolution or natural processes. Creation was a miracle, it was a supernatural Act of God, that is beyond science, logic, and reason.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
Evolutionists love to complain about the lack of evidence for Creation(ism). The reason there is limited empirical evidence for Creation is because science only deals with the natural, and the Creation of the earth was a supernatural event.

God Created the earth in six days 6-10,000 years ago, but not through evolution or natural processes. Creation was a miracle, it was a supernatural Act of God, that is beyond science, logic, and reason.

And that is all fine and dandy for you to say that, but why then did God create the earth to look old, in every possible way that we can examine it? Why did he create not only fossils of animals that, from a scientific standing, existed millions or hundreds of millions of years ago, but also other remnants of those fossils? (such as footprints and coprolite--fossilized dung). Why do impact craters exist from meteors that never struck the earth?

I could go on, but I'll let others chime in.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Dayton
Creation was a miracle, it was a supernatural Act of God, that is beyond science, logic, and reason.

That's it. Scientists, hear ye this: you're wasting your time. Pack your bags and test-tubes and dash over to an early retirement. There's no need for you, 'cos the Bible has all the answers.

Sirs, we have here a graphic example of how religion can impede scientific research. :mad:

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by Dayton
Evolutionists love to complain about the lack of evidence for Creation(ism). The reason there is limited empirical evidence for Creation is because science only deals with the natural, and the Creation of the earth was a supernatural event.

God Created the earth in six days 6-10,000 years ago, but not through evolution or natural processes. Creation was a miracle, it was a supernatural Act of God, that is beyond science, logic, and reason.

Fair enough. But would you then agree that the term "creation science" is an oxymoron? If a supernatural creation event is beyond reason, testing, and empirical verification then the term 'creation science' is like saying "Marxist laissez faire capitalism."

Also, if we are to accept supernatural untestable claims vs. empirical verifiable claims, we could just say that God created the universe 5 minutes ago. God simply planted all the fossils, made it look like an old earth and universe, and gave us all false memories of what we think was the past. There's no way to scientifically disprove that. Scientific claims must be falsifiable if it's to be called 'science'.

Also, you may want to reconsider your claim that God is beyond logic or else you'll be confronted with problems like "can God make 3 + 3 = 1?" or "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"

Jason

[Arikay]

Now, can you tell us why god made the earth to look 750,000X as old as it really is?
Was god just bad at making earths, or did he purposly lie to us?

Why using the inspired book of god, can you not pin down how old the earth is? You have a pretty huge margin there.

Maybe you can show us the scripture that says the earth is 6 - 10,000 years old? Unless of course, the bible never says it, and you are using a falible mans interpretation of it.

How come creationist organizations claim that the earth can be shown young from evidence alone?

[Jet Black]

explain the cosmic microwave background, light of the stars, and elemental proportions almost exactly in line with what would be expected for a universe that is about 15 billion years old?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Arikay
Maybe you can show us the scripture that says the earth is 6 - 10,000 years old? Unless of course, the bible never says it, and you are using a falible mans interpretation of it.


It can be dated by the genealogies. Even so, different Biblical chronologists arrived at different conclusions. The Jewish date is 3761 BCE, the Christian date is 4004 BCE.


How come creationist organizations claim that the earth can be shown young from evidence alone?

The more honest ones (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html) admit that the authority of scripture trumps all evidence to the contrary.

[Arikay]

Yep, I know about the genealogies, however, as you said, people arrive at different conclusions based on how they do it.

If he is so addament that they bible says the earth is young, im curious where the bible says the earth is young, and where he is basing his beliefs off of an interpretation of scripture (ie, non literal).

[MrDarwin]

Originally posted by Dayton
Evolutionists love to complain about the lack of evidence for Creation(ism). The reason there is limited empirical evidence for Creation is because science only deals with the natural, and the Creation of the earth was a supernatural event.

God Created the earth in six days 6-10,000 years ago, but not through evolution or natural processes. Creation was a miracle, it was a supernatural Act of God, that is beyond science, logic, and reason.

Supernatural or not, events that affect the entire physical world and its living organisms will leave huge amounts of evidence, both direct and indirect.

I presume you accept the flood story as well? If all animal "kinds" were descended from just two representatives of the "kind" that survived a worldwide flood ca. 4,000 years ago, we have to wonder why so many of these "kinds" demonstrate a huge morphological range (to the point that members of a "kind" are classified by scientists into several species and even genera) and likewise demonstrate a huge amount of genetic variation, showing no evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck. For a more concrete example, YEC's would have us believe that the entire Hawaiian silversword alliance (http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm)--a group of bizarre and morphologically distinctive genera--along with some extremely different genera from North America all diverged from a single ancestral species just 4,000 or so years ago. That's faster evolution than even evolutionary biologists believe in!

[Shpongle]

Originally posted by Arikay
Yep, I know about the genealogies, however, as you said, people arrive at different conclusions based on how they do it.

If he is so addament that they bible says the earth is young, im curious where the bible says the earth is young, and where he is basing his beliefs off of an interpretation of scripture (ie, non literal).

I've never understood the 6-10 thousand year range. If the Bible is so literal and accurate, why the 4000 year lee-way?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I've never understood the 6-10 thousand year range. If the Bible is so literal and accurate, why the 4000 year lee-way? I've often wondered about that too. Could it be that 6,007 years is just too implausible, even for them? Gives them no room for wriggling out of ice cores and dendrochronology...

Oolon

[dayton]

Originally posted by Spike Spiegel
explain the cosmic microwave background, light of the stars, and elemental proportions almost exactly in line with what would be expected for a universe that is about 15 billion years old?

I believe that God Created the earth fully mature and able to sustain life, and that the earth's apperance of age is a result of that.

http://www.christiananswers.net/

[Heathen Dawn]

So how do you know it was 6,000-10,000 years ago? If there's appearance of age, then it could have been created last Tuesday with all history faked out.

Don't you worry that you're making God the greatest deceiver ever?

[sensate]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dayton
[B]Evolutionists love to complain about the lack of evidence for Creation(ism).

Actually it is more of an observation than a compliant and while I cannot speak for other believers in mainstream science I do not love pointing out the lack of physical evidence in creationism. It makes me sad, frustrated and worried that some people want to ruin science for everyone in order to accomodate their religious beliefs.

[Senlatheil]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God Created the earth fully mature and able to sustain life, and that the earth's apperance of age is a result of that.


Just to be friendly, Dayton, such vague and ambiguous (sp?) responses don't offer much. It's like tofu--there's nothing in it. The people that post here tend to be as specific as possible, and support their claims with evidence. If you make broad claims without supporting yourself, you'll begin to look like you are dodging arguements. :)

[Arikay]

You still havent answered the question.

A truthfull "appearance of age" would Not make the earth look 750,000 times older than it really is.

Explain why god made the world to decieve us?

Can you also explain where you get the two numbers (6000 and 10,000) from?

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God Created the earth fully mature and able to sustain life, and that the earth's apperance of age is a result of that.

http://www.christiananswers.net/

[WinAce]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God Created the earth fully mature and able to sustain life, and that the earth's apperance of age is a result of that.

As pointed out numerous times before, there's a large difference between appearance of maturity and appearance of history.

The former amounts to saying God created Adam; the latter purports that God created Adam with a broken nose from a fight in 6th grade that never happened, an appendicitis surgery scar, a few filled-in cavities and other indications of a fake history.

[RBH]

Winace wroteThe former amounts to saying God created Adam; the latter purports that God created Adam with a broken nose from a fight in 6th grade that never happened, an appendicitis surgery scar, a few filled-in cavities and other indications of a fake history.Not to mention a navel. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322386/qid=1061314167/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6690398-3488625?v=glance&s=books) :)

RBH

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God Created the earth fully mature and able to sustain life, and that the earth's apperance of age is a result of that.

Hmm. Do you believe God created the entire universe some 6-10k years ago, or only the earth? Since you're a geocentrist, I assume the entire universe, as it would need something to orbit around.

If you think it was the entire universe, that would lead to a rather absurd conclusion. We can "see" stars and galaxies in the universe anywhere from a few lightyears to, IIRC, some 12-13 billion light years away. IOW, it took the light from the most distant objects yet observed 12-13 billion years to reach the earth. The vast majority of the universe we can observe today is farther away than 10k light years.

Now, if the universe was created only 6-10k years ago, that would mean that the vast majority of what we see in the universe never existed. Those galaxies and stars may exist now, but when the universe was created, what we're seeing now that is farther than 10k lightyears away (which is virtually everything), since it had to have occurred before creation, never happened. The majority of the universe we can observe is merely some sort of "movie" or animation of the universe's non-existent past that God apparently sent on our way when he created the universe as it is now.

[dayton]

Originally posted by Arikay
You still havent answered the question.

A truthfull "appearance of age" would Not make the earth look 750,000 times older than it really is.

Explain why god made the world to decieve us?

Can you also explain where you get the two numbers (6000 and 10,000) from?

I honestly don't know. Maybe I am wrong, maybe evolution is true.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Dayton
I honestly don't know. Maybe I am wrong, maybe evolution is true.

That would be the only conclusion that fits with the evidence. There are a few theistic evolutionists here, Christians that believe in Genesis and the authority of the Bible, and also accept that evolution occured. They consider evolution the way that God made everything [Edit: by that I mean the diversity of life on the planet], the same way He would allow gravity to pull objects to the earth instead of doing it Himself.

[Arikay]

That would be the most logical conclusion.

That would also keep from making god into a liar (since afterall, if he created the world and creationism was right, then that means he created the world to decieve us).

Now, you need to remember, that Evolution is not atheism, or atheistic. God could have easily used Evolution to create. God could have easily created mutations to guide evolution.

Science can not tell if he did or not.

Originally posted by Dayton
I honestly don't know. Maybe I am wrong, maybe evolution is true.

[Heathen Dawn]

What Xixax said. Those idiots at Answers in Genesis paint a false dichotomy: young-earth creationism or atheism. They comfortably ignore the majority of Christians, who find there to be no incompatibility between evolution and their faith.

Have it out from ex-YEC, now theistic evolutionist Glenn Morton (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm). He nearly became an atheist when he left YEC (thanks to the false dichotomisation mentioned above), but he eventually found a way, and he has stayed a Christian.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
I honestly don't know. Maybe I am wrong, maybe evolution is true.

Can I ask you to back up and explain why you decided it was false before? You previously said that you'd been both an atheist and an evolutionist--so you must have had some reason to decide that both were incorrect.

[dayton]

I never said that I rejected evolution based on the evidence, as the majority of the evidence supports evolution. I rejected evolution when I became a Christian.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Dayton
I never said that I rejected evolution based on the evidence, as the majority of the evidence supports evolution. I rejected evolution when I became a Christian.

Ok, so then what gave you the impression that evolution and Christianity were diametrically opposed? They clearly aren't, unless you question the authenticity of Christianity in those who have Christian faith and accept that evolution happened and is happening.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Dayton
I never said that I rejected evolution based on the evidence, as the majority of the evidence supports evolution. I rejected evolution when I became a Christian.

Even though there are oodles of Christians who accept evolution? Sounds pretty silly to me.

[Arikay]

As others have pointed out, you can be christian and Accept Evolution. matter of fact, the Majority of christians of the world do.

Originally posted by Dayton
I never said that I rejected evolution based on the evidence, as the majority of the evidence supports evolution. I rejected evolution when I became a Christian.

[sakrilege]

Answers in Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/) is a xian website.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by sakrilege
Answers in Creation (http://www.answersincreation.org/) is a xian website.

How sad that a Christian website is needed to defend the Christian faith against attacks from other Christians. :banghead:

[Donnmathan]

No offense, anybody, but let's not flog the poor guy; the transition from the - I believe it was CF I saw him on - is going to be a bit hard for someone who's beliefs are that far off the norm for this board. Hate to scare him off. Heck, I was kind of like that myself at one point (long before I found II :D), and my father still is, so I kind of feel for him.

Dayton, to stress a point that Senlatheil made, try to give the most complete answers you can, and do your best to support them. You'll actually find (and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong) that people around here aren't nearly so..hmm...aggressive(?) if you admit to what you don't know or are unsure of, and show information to support what you believe/accept as true. The worst most of them will do is point out the holes (if any) in your position.

[Albion]

Dayton, since most people don't feel the need to ditch evolution when they become Christians, what was the reason for your doing so? Do you really believe that accepting special creationism is necessary for a person to be a Christian?

[Jayjay]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn

It can be dated by the genealogies. Even so, different Biblical chronologists arrived at different conclusions. The Jewish date is 3761 BCE, the Christian date is 4004 BCE.
Really? I know Usher's date of 4004 BC was based on the masoretic text, what's the Jewish date based on?

[Queen of Swords]

Evolution made sense to me both before and after I became a born-again christian. I just figured that with God, all things are possible. :)

Seriously though, I believed that the first chapters of Genesis were meant to illustrate humankind's need for salvation. They were not meant to be a scientific text any more than Leviticus was meant to be a medical dictionary.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Jayjay
Really? I know Usher's date of 4004 BC was based on the masoretic text, what's the Jewish date based on?

On a book of the Talmud called Seder Olam Rabba, by Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta (2nd century CE). It's the official Jewish Biblical chronology.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Albion
Dayton, since most people don't feel the need to ditch evolution when they become Christians, what was the reason for your doing so? Do you really believe that accepting special creationism is necessary for a person to be a Christian?

Well, he said that he was a Bible Literalist. I would imagine you'd have to ditch evolution to be one of those. I imagine that Christians who believe in evolution are not Bible literalists.

[Arikay]

The interesting thing is that he has already ditched the literal interpretation when it comes to a flat vs round earth.

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Well, he said that he was a Bible Literalist. I would imagine you'd have to ditch evolution to be one of those. I imagine that Christians who believe in evolution are not Bible literalists.

[Heathen Dawn]

It's quite hard to be a real Biblical literalist. You have to ignore a whole larger world around you to do so: China, Australia and the Americas, for example. When the Bible calls the Mediterranean "the Great Sea", then if you're a literalist, all you can do is acquiesce to it and ignore the existence of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

[Albion]

Well, he said that he was a Bible Literalist. I would imagine you'd have to ditch evolution to be one of those.

I'm just wondering where he got the idea that being a biblical literalist is a necessary part of being a Christian.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Arikay

Can you also explain where you get the two numbers (6000 and 10,000) from?

IIRC, that upper range is the fudge factor they're forced to put in when faced with the overwhelming evidence of a Chinese history that goes back 9000+ years...

[Arikay]

Yeah, I remember reading an ICR article that also pushed it back because of tree ring dating.

However, fudge factors are not biblical. Being a biblical literalist, I want to know where in the bible he is finding his dates. Otherwise his dates are just as falible as Evolution, which he claims to be false.

Originally posted by Kosh
IIRC, that upper range is the fudge factor they're forced to put in when faced with the overwhelming evidence of a Chinese history that goes back 9000+ years...

[Donnmathan]

I believe they come from the work of some to determine the age of creation based on the lineages in the bible. The padding is because no one knows how long those people lived; can see how it would get a bit fuzzy, considering you had to figure out which ones lived to be 60 and which 600, and where in those long lives they actually had their kids...:rolleyes:

[Arikay]

Yep, its amazingly fuzzy and never actually written out in the bible. It is much less literal than a flat earth.

Yet our Biblical Literalist seems to be adament that the bible says that the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old, yet believes in a round earth and not a Flat one.

One would wonder if he truly follows the bible literaly, or only uses it as an excuse to not give up his man made idea of creationism.


Originally posted by Donnmathan
I believe they come from the work of some to determine the age of creation based on the lineages in the bible. The padding is because no one knows how long those people lived; can see how it would get a bit fuzzy, considering you had to figure out which ones lived to be 60 and which 600, and where in those long lives they actually had their kids...:rolleyes:

[SLD]

Originally posted by Dayton
I never said that I rejected evolution based on the evidence, as the majority of the evidence supports evolution. I rejected evolution when I became a Christian.

Well, I'll say one thing for you Dayton: You are Honest. That's good. But perhaps you need to re-examine your christian faith - come on over to Biblical Criticism forums and see if you still believe in it after reading a lot of the arguments made over there.

I'm curious though: how old are you?

Respectfully you sound very young. You seem willing to ignore the evidence in favor of your emotional reaction to Christianity. Is that logical? Or is it OK to accept the illogicality of religion as long as it makes us feel good.

This is just the kind of reasoning I can't fathom. It is to deliberately turn a blind eye to the evidence merely because we can't handle the truth. It is easier to live a lie than to do the hard work to learn the truth and accept it wherever it takes us.

Let me ask you another question: if the evidence showed you that Christianity was false would you recant it?

SLD

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Dayton
God Created the earth in six days 6-10,000 years ago, but not through evolution or natural processes. Creation was a miracle, it was a supernatural Act of God, that is beyond science, logic, and reason.

Lemme see if I understand: It is your position that it is in fact true that god created the world, but that it is not logical nor reasonable to believe that it is true. Did I get that right?
crc

[dayton]

Originally posted by SLD
Well, I'll say one thing for you Dayton: You are Honest. That's good. But perhaps you need to re-examine your christian faith - come on over to Biblical Criticism forums and see if you still believe in it after reading a lot of the arguments made over there.

I'm curious though: how old are you?

Respectfully you sound very young. You seem willing to ignore the evidence in favor of your emotional reaction to Christianity. Is that logical? Or is it OK to accept the illogicality of religion as long as it makes us feel good.

This is just the kind of reasoning I can't fathom. It is to deliberately turn a blind eye to the evidence merely because we can't handle the truth. It is easier to live a lie than to do the hard work to learn the truth and accept it wherever it takes us.

Let me ask you another question: if the evidence showed you that Christianity was false would you recant it?

SLD

I'm 20 years old. That's not very young, and this board is 18+ only anyway. I find it offensive that you think I am a child and that I can't handle the truth because I accept Christianity and more specifically Creationism. I could use 'big fancy words' to impress people, but I don't believe in that. I believe I can get my point across while still speaking plain english.

By the way, that's Mr. Dayton to you. :)

[Mageth]

...and this board is 18+ only anyway.

No, it's not.

[dayton]

Originally posted by Mageth
...and this board is 18+ only anyway.

No, it's not.

It's NOT? Whit all the cursing and sex talk that goes on here it should be!

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Dayton
I'm 20 years old. That's not very young, and this board is 18+ only anyway. I find it offensive that you think I am a child and that I can't handle the truth because I accept Christianity and more specifically Creationism. I could use 'big fancy words' to impress people, but I don't believe in that. I believe I can get my point across while still speaking plain english.

By the way, that's Mr. Dayton to you. :)

The use of big fancy words isn't intended to impress people. They are used so that sentences have a clearer and more succinct representation of their meaning. Some may use them to impress, but for the most part they are just writing in the manner that feels natural to them.

Your vocabulary has nothing to do with the assumption on your age. It’s your choice of emotion over evidence and reason, in spite of the fact there is no true conflict.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Dayton
It's NOT? Whit all the cursing and sex talk that goes on here it should be!

Then perhaps the Bible should be 18+ as well...

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Dayton
It's NOT? Whit all the cursing and sex talk that goes on here it should be!

Yes, I doubt any child has ever heard a curse word or talk about sex at school or when playing tag football ( the perverted U.S. meaning of football ;) ).

As with all things like that, parental guidance is key. At least the discussions here do not make the subject of sex a mysterious taboo that will only serve to fuel the curiousity of their young minds.

This is off subject anyway... let's get back to focusing on evolution and the evidence presented. :)

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Dayton
I'm 20 years old. That's not very young, and this board is 18+ only anyway. I find it offensive that you think I am a child and that I can't handle the truth because I accept Christianity and more specifically Creationism. I could use 'big fancy words' to impress people, but I don't believe in that. I believe I can get my point across while still speaking plain english.

By the way, that's Mr. Dayton to you. :)

Age means little here. The content of your posting is all matters.

You speak of big, fancy words. Well, science uses a lot of them, but they are used to make an accurate description, more accurate than common usage. There is nothing stopping you from learning to understand these terms.

Incidently, we'd feared we'd lost you. We get so many drive-bys, you know. glad to see you're not another of them. :)

doov

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Mageth
Then perhaps the Bible should be 18+ as well...

Yes. The Bible is filled with vast amounts of disturbing imagery. The mailing of severed body parts, fathers handing over daughters to be raped, incest... *sighs*

[edit: apologies for falling off track on the discussion... back to evolution! ]

[Heathen Dawn]

Guys, it's all over. Poor Dayton decided he won't pway (sic). He's going back to CF.

:boohoo:

[Roland98]

Well, he has said he'll at least stick around and read. If nothing else, perhaps he'll become an educated lurker. One can always hope.

[Stephen T-B]

Genesis 1 gives an account of the steps God took when he created Heaven and Earth.
I have to say it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and would be grateful if Dayton could share with me how he envisages the events which took place.

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the *1deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was *2light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God *3divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a *4firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the *5waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.



__
*1 What deep?
*2 What was the source of this light?
*3 How were night and day divided if there was not yet any sun and not yet any Earth?
*4 Does “firmament” mean the sky?
*5 Does this mean there is water above the sky?

As you can see, I am very confused.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
*1 What deep?Pre-existing earth. The story does not say that the earth was created, rather that God formed it from its chaotic state.
*2 What was the source of this light?You could ultimately say God is.
*3 How were night and day divided if there was not yet any sun and not yet any Earth?If you read closer, God creates the sun and moon to have "dominion" over the day and night, respectively. Last time I checked, only animate objects can have dominion over something. So day and night existed without the sun and moon. God put gods, sun and moon, into position to keep the cycle very dependable.
*4 Does “firmament” mean the sky?Firmament is actually a dome. This geometry also leads to the necessity of a flat earth.
*5 Does this mean there is water above the sky?Why yes, it does. In fact, it is this very same water that will flood the earth during the "Great" Flood. God returns the earth back to its original state during that flood.

Of course, we all know this is bull, but hey, its what the original authors thought.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Dayton
I'm 20 years old. That's not very young,

Actually, you have no idea just how young you still are! ;) But it's not uncommon to think otherwise.

Trying to remember what I was like 20 years ago.... oh yeah, I was a young earth creationist!....and VERY wrong.:cool:

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Dayton
I believe that God Created the earth fully mature and able to sustain life, and that the earth's apperance of age is a result of that.


So, is it your theory that god made the world to look as if it has existed for billions of years, and that any scientific examination that neglects the bible will conclude that the world is billions of years old?
crc