Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Speaking as an atheist, there are in fact problems with "straight" evolutionary theory from a traditional mechanistic point of view which relies on "random mutations". Statistically these cannot account for the "speed" of evolutionary change.
Without evoking "divine origin" it seems that spontaneous "creation" is an aspect of the natural process of structural organization and occurs at "bifurcation points" in systems defined mathematically as "far from equilibrium". (see for example Capra "The Web of Life").

The above does not constitute evidence for creationISM, but it certainly implies we should examine what is meant by creatIVITY.

0 Replies

well thanks for admitting at least that....

0 Replies

Everybody has more or less a faith in a view that is ungrounded: a myth, mathematics (you know consistency of the math system is not proven), science, or the personality of a friend ..
Of these the last one is the most trustworthy.
If you hear something from a friend whom you trust you would believe it.

0 Replies

micah wrote:

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...

Evolution isn't necessarily the story of the beginning of the universe (I personally don't believe it is) and that is why it does not contradict creation of the universe by g-d. It is merely a theory about how genetics travel and species diverge into new species.

The problem with creationsim (as opposed to "g-d started world/universe") is that it tries to confirm biblical events such as the flood and adam and eve - when these are in all likelihood told for the same reasons as a parable - for moral guidance - not a scientific rational history of the world/universe. It is a simplified way of understanding for a simple audience - don't forget the time in which it was written - most of the people christianity targeted didn't read (illiterate) or know about science.

So trying to prove these things happened using vague scientific language and methods (I have yet to see a scientific creationist study using the scientific method) is just plain silly.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

don't forget the time in which it was written - most of the people christianity targeted didn't read or know about science.

actually the scientific method came somewhere around the sixteenth century, so even if they wanted to 'read' about science, they wouldn't have been able to...but this is not my point...

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

micah wrote:
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...

Evolution isn't necessarily the story of the beginning of the universe (I personally don't believe it is) and that is why it does not contradict creation of the universe by g-d. It is merely a theory about how genetics travel and species diverge into new species.

The problem with creationsim (as opposed to "g-d started world/universe") is that it tries to confirm biblical events such as the flood and adam and eve - when these are in all likelihood told for the same reasons as a parable - for moral guidance - not a scientific rational history of the world/universe. It is a simplified way of understanding for a simple audience - don't forget the time in which it was written - most of the people christianity targeted didn't read (illiterate) or know about science.

So trying to prove these things happened using vague scientific language and methods (I have yet to see a scientific creationist study using the scientific method) is just plain silly.

g-d?

0 Replies

micah wrote:

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...

Your inability to see this argument works both ways befuddles me.

Why does the ability to be created from nothing apply only to God?

It is circular logic.

If time is a property of the universe created by the Big Bang, the concept of what caused the Big Bang is a concept without meaning, because cause and effect require time.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

g-d?

Yeah, I was raised Jewish and it stuck. Not the Judaism (I'm an agnostic) but the writing. In Judaism it is disrespectful to write out the name of g-d and I was scolded for writing it out. I get asked this a lot (I think this is the fifth time on this forum, there was even a thread started about it)... Maybe it is somthing that I should just forcibly change.

0 Replies

micah wrote:

well thanks for admitting at least that....

The fact that science has not yet completed the evolutionary narrative is not a knock against it. Science has completely sewn up very few things. On the other hand, religion is, by definition, a complete narrative, and one that has been knocked down so many times on so many levels that it no longer seems worth repreating.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Why does the ability to be created from nothing apply only to God?

God was not created...he is outside of time and has always existed..

0 Replies

micah wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
Why does the ability to be created from nothing apply only to God?

God was not created...he is outside of time and has always existed..

Uh, read my post again.

Your inability to see this argument works both ways befuddles me.

Why does the ability to be created from nothing apply only to God?

It is circular logic.

If time is a property of the universe created by the Big Bang, the concept of what caused the Big Bang is a concept without meaning, because cause and effect require time.

The obvious problem with your statement is that I could just as easily rephrase it to support the Big Bang: Time is a property of the universe created by the Big Bang, ergo, it has always existed and needs no creator (since the concept of before has no meaning outside of the Big Bang.)

0 Replies

IronLionZion,

Your reasoning is absolutely correct. However the ultimate theistic "escape clause" is to ask where "reasoning" itself "came from" at which point nothing further can be said using "normal logic and evidence".

0 Replies

The biggest problem I see (as a creationist) is the age of the Earth; there is just too much evidence for an older Earth to allow the 10,000 years claimed by literalists. As PortalStar has indicated, though, that doesn't negate the possibility of creation.
2 possible explanations:
1) God didn't necessarily create a "young" Earth--He could have created a fully-developed Earth that appeared a few billion years old. There are a few problems with this theory, though, that I won't get into
2) The Genesis account does not indicate how much time passed before the "fall of man"; if one accepts that death/aging did not occur prior to the fall, a few billion years could have passed between the creation of Adam & Eve and the fatal fruit. This is the theory I'm holding to at the moment, although it also has some unresolved issues.

Personally, as a scientist I find that I must accept some degree of evolution. However, I still believe in creation; philosophically it is enough for me to know (believe) that God created the Earth and its life in some form or another and that He made man different than the animals. Beyond that, the details of evolutionary development are interesting but are inconsequential as far as my faith is concerned.

0 Replies

IronZion

Micah has no problem stating that nothing can come from nothing -- but then positing that his god always existed in oder to escape from the absurdity his reasoning engenders.

Micah can't even contemplate the possibility that that EXISTENCE always has existed -- in a way similar to his "my god has always existed", because he fears his god too much.

You are trying to use reason with him.

You'd have a better chance of success using reason on a ferret.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Micah can't even contemplate the possibility that that EXISTENCE always has existed

you don't know me well enough to speculate on what i have contemplated....

all you can do is insult....

0 Replies

micah wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Micah can't even contemplate the possibility that that EXISTENCE always has existed

you don't know me well enough to speculate on what i have contemplated....

all you can do is insult....

I'm not trying to insult you -- I am merely making observations about the ability of anyone in this forum to get through your fears and defenses.

But since you bring this up...

...since you can conceive of a god that has always been, can you not conceive of existence as always having been?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

can you not conceive of existence as always having been?

yes i can conceive that....many have wondered if our universe has undergone MANY bigbangs....constantly banging, and then petering out only to have gravity eventually suck everything in again to create the next bigbang...i'm familar with cosmic background radiation...i'm even familar with the newest findings which virtually prove that our universe is not only expanding, its accelerating and that eventually (possibly) all matter will be broken up in an ever-expanding nothingness...

but still....something can not come from nothing...unless that 'something' is an eternal all powerful God who is outside of time....our finite minds can not fully fathom a God outside of time that has no beginning...yet, this must be, because logically, something can not come from nothing.

0 Replies

lab rat wrote:

The biggest problem I see (as a creationist) is the age of the Earth; there is just too much evidence for an older Earth to allow the 10,000 years claimed by literalists. As PortalStar has indicated, though, that doesn't negate the possibility of creation.
2 possible explanations:
1) God didn't necessarily create a "young" Earth--He could have created a fully-developed Earth that appeared a few billion years old. There are a few problems with this theory, though, that I won't get into
2) The Genesis account does not indicate how much time passed before the "fall of man"; if one accepts that death/aging did not occur prior to the fall, a few billion years could have passed between the creation of Adam & Eve and the fatal fruit. This is the theory I'm holding to at the moment, although it also has some unresolved issues.

This makes little sense to me, but okay.

Quote:

Personally, as a scientist I find that I must accept some degree of evolution. However, I still believe in creation; philosophically it is enough for me to know (believe) that God created the Earth and its life in some form or another and that He made man different than the animals. Beyond that, the details of evolutionary development are interesting but are inconsequential as far as my faith is concerned.

I'm interested in hearing you explain how we are different from animals in any way that supports creationism. Are you talking about conscioussness, sentience, morality?

0 Replies

micah wrote:

but still....something can not come from nothing...unless that 'something' is an eternal all powerful God who is outside of time....our finite minds can not fully fathom a God outside of time that has no beginning...yet, this must be, because logically, something can not come from nothing.

The fact remains, if we imbue God with the ability to come from nothing, there is absolutely no reason that 'ability' cannot apply to the universe itself, as has been pointed out numerous times.

You are free to believe that a magical, stuttering, baby-killing father figure created the world, sent his son to earth, tricked the Romans into killing him, but not really, and hates gays. I can believe that Kiera Knightley is going to climb down from the Pirates of the Caribbean poster above my desk and fellate me into a coma. We're both well within our rights.

We're also both completely bat**** insane. Kiera Knightley has pretty boobs, which I would like to touch. On what do your predicate your delusion?

If it is nothing more than the circular logic you have put forth in this thread combined with feelings based on your own inner psychology, then we can end the conversation now. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

0 Replies

the problem with causality (prime mover) argument is that it ends up eating its own tail.

0 Replies

Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know