Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Forums: Creationism, Spirituality And Religion, Religion, Evolution
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is a broad-based question for all of the creationists on A2K. I am just wondering, on what evidence do you base your belief? I am interested in knowing how you deal with scientific knowledge that seems to disprove your claim. Evolution, the date of the Earth, etc. How these people reconcile evolution with theism. If anybody has personal (read: emotional) reasons for believing in creationism, let me know how that came to be.

Personally, I understand that human beings demand justification for thier existence in the same way that a heroin addicts twitching viens demand the next hit, but that doesn't make the demand rational or a theory based on it plausible. Creationism seems to be based on this type of irrationality, because as far as I can see, it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I'm open to discussion on this, though.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 28,816 • Replies: 488

No top replies

Knowledge is important, but faith is vital.
(Caution: I am not a creationist.)

1 Reply

Quote:

Knowledge is important, but faith is vital.

I am curious as to why you think that faith is vital.

0 Replies

If you trust a friend it is also a faith.

0 Replies

Quote:

faith (fāth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

If you are using the first definition, I absolutely agree with you. I think that "confident belief" though, is a colloquial use of the word. "faith".
When you have "faith" in a friend, in THAT sense, it is based on what you know about him, and the results of your prior interactions with him. Because of your "history" with that person, you can anticipate, with fairly good confidence, how the person would behave in the future.

Quote:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

When you wrote your post, I was thinking in terms of the second definition.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Quote:

When you wrote your post, I was thinking in terms of the second definition.

Are you saying that there is a logical, proof-supported reason for believing in Creationism?

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you saying that there is a logical, proof-supported reason for believing in Creationism?

Hell, no! I was just questioning what satt_focusable
meant by this remark:

Quote:

Knowledge is important, but faith is vital.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Quote:
When you wrote your post, I was thinking in terms of the second definition.

Are you saying that there is a logical, proof-supported reason for believing in Creationism?

No, but the creationists say there is. They have pseudoscientists who fudge the details. The funny thing about creationism is that you don't even have to do that - if G-d created the world he could have done it yesterday and implanted memories into our heads and we would not have known the difference. Same with the grand canyon, etc. He could have just made it, as is, anytime so geological processes would be irrelevant (some also blame noah's flood for the formation of the grand canyon.)

However, they still try to find ties between science and biblical event (hey, at least they're trying to acknowledge the validity of science.)

For example, they say all of the shell fragments found in the ground that would be indicative of ocean (even in the middle of Missouri) are evidence of the biblical flood in the story of Noah and the Ark.

They also use an argument called the flagellum or mousetrap argument (I think this is supposed to both debunk evolution and prove the existence of g-d) Micah used it in an earlier post. It goes somthing like: the world is so irreducibly complex it must have had an intelligent designer. We don't have a precedent for everything because some things ex: tail of the flagellum are so irreducibly complex (aka: we haven't thought of anything simpler they could come from) that they couldn't have evolved out of nowhere, and they couldn't function without the other parts of the flagellum (like a mousetrap without a spring) therefore there must be "an intelligent designer."

Complexity is not a valid argument against evolution, and our lack of present knowledge does not mean there is no answer. (One needs evidence to provide proof or disproof, not a lack of evidence.)

0 Replies

For me, I see the finger of God everywhere; the inner struggle between good and evil in every person.

And of course, the real clincher is the ridiculous alternative: the anti-science of the "conjecture of evolution".

0 Replies

Defender wrote:

For me, I see the finger of God everywhere; the inner struggle between good and evil in every person.

And of course, the real clincher is the ridiculous alternative: the anti-science of the "conjecture of evolution".

Would it be possible for there to be a struggle between good and evil (here I'm assuming you mean doing what's best for everyone or doing what you want at the time) without the hand of g-d?

Surely you've seen fido debating the consequences of his/her actions.

0 Replies

Defender wrote:

For me, I see the finger of God everywhere; the inner struggle between good and evil in every person.

This statement reeks of anthrocentrism, if you'll excuse the term. The "inner struggle between good and evil" - in other words, morality - is present withen all social animals, from a community of prairie dogs to a pod of whales. So, it in no way supports creationism as the bible describes it. In fact, it supports evolution, as an argument could be made that morality is a survival mechanism designed to keep the co-dependant nature of social animal groups intact.

Quote:

And of course, the real clincher is the ridiculous alternative: the anti-science of the "conjecture of evolution".

I'm curious as to what your objection to evolution is. Irreducible complexity, blind faith, or something else?

In any case, dismissing evolution does not support creationism. At all. Anybody who claims it does is, frankly, an idiot. Even if we assume that evolution is false, that does not neccessarily mean that creationism is correct. In fact, evolution is not even supposed to explain the origin of life - that field is called abiogenises. Evolution only concerns itself with what happened after the first organism. So, it is not an "alternative" to creationism. It is, however, an alternative to the biblical version of events.

However, it's a common ploy used by religious people to argue in a circular fashion: evolution can't be right becuase it doesn't explain how life began, but the bible does, so creationism is obviously correct. They call this faith rather than what it actually is: a quantum leap into the delusional state.

The fact is - there is a wealth of evidence supporting evolution and none disproving it. For example, if anyone wants to disprove evolution, they need to do only one thing: find a SINGLE fossil anywhere on this planet that doesn't conform to the linear nature of evolutionary law, and the whole thing will come tumbling down at our disbelieveing feet. Of course they can't, because no such fossil exists and cannot exist, it would be like finding a billion-year-old Ferrari with a fossilzed amino acid at the wheel.

0 Replies

this page: http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html

shows evolutions fallacy

0 Replies

micah wrote:

this page: http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html

shows evolutions fallacy

No it doesn't.

0 Replies

yes it does...you just don't want to admit it....

0 Replies

micah wrote:

yes it does...you just don't want to admit it....

Micah, the only person on these forums unaware of your ignorance is you.

I read the esssay, and there is only one point in it that is correct - we haven't replicated yet, we haven't progressed enough yet, dug up enough fossils yet. However, all that we have tested and all that we have dug up go along with the theory. In order to disprove evolution they would need to come up with contradictory evidence, not a lack of evidence. The people who wrote it don't seem to understand the concept of evolution or the scientific method, which makes sense because they specialize in religion - not science. Try reading somthing that has nothing to do with confirming your beliefs - it will do you good.

0 Replies

thanks for your opinions portal star....

0 Replies

and for yours Micah

0 Replies

Is this just another trap-door thread that ambushes people who do believe in creationism?

No one can prove that God created the universe, no can prove he didn't create the universe. Either way is just a way to get the human brain to grasp a concept that it can't understand...where did it come from.

As a side note...evolution is proven. creationism past the creation of the universe is less likely as science has proven many theories that answered many questions about the origins of the universe.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Is this just another trap-door thread that ambushes people who do believe in creationism?

What do you see in the following intro to this thread that looks to you like an ambush??

Quote:

This is a broad-based question for all of the creationists on A2K. I am just wondering, on what evidence do you base your belief? I am interested in knowing how you deal with scientific knowledge that seems to disprove your claim. Evolution, the date of the Earth, etc. How these people reconcile evolution with theism. If anybody has personal (read: emotional) reasons for believing in creationism, let me know how that came to be.

Personally, I understand that human beings demand justification for thier existence in the same way that a heroin addicts twitching viens demand the next hit, but that doesn't make the demand rational or a theory based on it plausible. Creationism seems to be based on this type of irrationality, because as far as I can see, it is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I'm open to discussion on this, though.

0 Replies

ok...well, tell me....re: the big bang....how can something come from nothing??

Christians argue that God is Eternal...never had a beginning, never will have an ending...

in my opinion....something can not come from nothing....the only way matter can exist at all is if there is an Eternal God, who is outside of time, and has always existed...

0 Replies

Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know