Any Hypothesis or Experiment Ideas to test for Creationism

[Lantern Keirebu]

Hey everyone. What I want to discuss in this topic are hypothesis for the literal reading of Genesis. How can we prove it through experimentation. Anyone have any ideas concerning that? Most of the outspoken creationists, such as the guys at Answers in Genesis, don't do any real testing. As a creationist, that drives me crazy. How can you argue something if you can't even prove it.? That's the job of a scientist, to find out the truth, and be able to back it up with evidence. So, does anyone have an hypothesis concerning the literal creation?

 

[truthinapologetics]

Hey everyone. What I want to discuss in this topic are hypothesis for the literal reading of Genesis. How can we prove it through experimentation. Anyone have any ideas concerning that? Most of the outspoken creationists, such as the guys at Answers in Genesis, don't do any real testing. As a creationist, that drives me crazy. How can you argue something if you can't even prove it.? That's the job of a scientist, to find out the truth, and be able to back it up with evidence. So, does anyone have an hypothesis concerning the literal creation?

You can't test the miraculous and immaterial work of God.

Besides, what is a "literal" reading of Genesis? "Literal" according to whom...a 21st century modernist, or someone from 2000 BCE? I imagine a "literal" reading to each would be radically different...

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

You can't test the miraculous and immaterial work of God.

Besides, what is a "literal" reading of Genesis? "Literal" according to whom...a 21st century modernist, or someone from 2000 BCE? I imagine a "literal" reading to each would be radically different...

You can test for things like the flood. From it, you can gather information about how life was before it. There's a lot to test for concerning what the Bible said has happened.

 

[truthinapologetics]

You can test for things like the flood. From it, you can gather information about how life was before it. There's a lot to test for concerning what the Bible said has happened.

Hmm, the OP asked about "creation", not "all of Genesis".

But even still, what do you mean by "has happened"? To the modern mind with its prejudice toward historicity, "has happened" is dependent upon particular notions of historical verifiability, historical evidence, etc. In the time of the writing of Genesis, creation and flood myths/epics were common and, at least in the case of Hebrews, had very particular theological and social purposes. So whose "has happened" are you testing? The modern or the ANE?

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

Hmm, the OP asked about "creation", not "all of Genesis".

But even still, what do you mean by "has happened"? To the modern mind with its prejudice toward historicity, "has happened" is dependent upon particular notions of historical verifiability, historical evidence, etc. In the time of the writing of Genesis, creation and flood myths/epics were common and, at least in the case of Hebrews, had very particular theological and social purposes. So whose "has happened" are you testing? The modern or the ANE?

Which view Jesus had concerning the things mentioned in Genesis? I know it makes sense to equate the ancient Israelites to that of the cultures of the ANE, but that would be a mistake considering God was very close to this people. Other stories in ANE cultures, their gods are far away, but Yahweh was very near. In other words, we have reason to believe that Genesis is to be seen as a true account of history.


So again, did Jesus believe those things literally happened? (The flood/Adam and Eve/etc.) It's indicated in the Gospels that He did. Paul certainly believed in the literal reading of Genesis, that Adam and Eve literally existed. So as a creationist, the first thing to test for is the flood of Noah's day.

 

[truthinapologetics]

Which view Jesus had concerning the things mentioned in Genesis?

I have no idea. I would imagine something different than what you or I have, given that the predominant philosophical paradigm of his day was not modernism.

I know it makes sense to equate the ancient Israelites to that of the cultures of the ANE, but that would be a mistake considering God was very close to this people.

I'm not sure why this would be the case. Regardless of God's relationship with the people of Israel, I don't think we see an enormous philosophical shift in them from that of the surrounding cultures.

Other stories in ANE cultures, their gods are far away, but Yahweh was very near.

This may be the case, but what does it have to do with the basic question of the prevailing philosophical paradigms of the day and age? Regardless of the theological differences between the people of Israel and other ancient peoples, it's quite obvious from the OT writings in relation to other ANE literature that the Israelites shared some basic and fundamental philosophical assumptions.

In other words, we have reason to believe that Genesis is to be seen as a true account of history.

Again, what does "true account of history" mean? To the modern mind, this presumes a whole host of assumptions wrapped up in objectivist historicity, the evaluation of evidence, etc. Did the ancient mind share these assumptions about history? If the literature that they left behind is any indication, I think it's quite clear that the answer is no. This is not to pass judgment on their philosophical assumptions, nor to say that theirs was deficient or superior. The point is that it was most definitely different, and so requires that we do our best in suspending the assumptions which we make regarding "history" when we read their "historical" accounts.

So again, did Jesus believe those things literally happened? (The flood/Adam and Eve/etc.) It's indicated in the Gospels that He did. Paul certainly believed in the literal reading of Genesis, that Adam and Eve literally existed.

How do you propose to establish these claims? You are assuming quite a bit about their philosophical assumptions regarding history, but have yet to even describe what these assumptions were. To me, this seems to indicate that you are super-imposing your modernist assumptions about historicity upon them, effectively making your philosophical presuppositions normative for the evaluation of all human history. This seems to me to be a bit of stretch.

So as a creationist, the first thing to test for is the flood of Noah's day.

Based on what you've written thus far, I still don't understand why the creationist would start here. Until you have established the philosophical underpinnings of the "historical" writings within Genesis and shown them to be amenable to a modernistic approach, a jump to a default of modernistic historicity seems to be quite the leap indeed.

 

[TasManOfGod]

My first thoughts on the matter are :
It is the scientist role to prove things using science
It is the believers role to believe things by faith.
Now a scientist who is a believer might want to do both. The difficulty seems to be that while many proofs like the rapid formation of coal (and diamonds) has been achieved, the realisation of a young earth and a world wide flood has been scientifically ignored in favour of a Godless beginning.

 

[miamited]

Hey everyone. What I want to discuss in this topic are hypothesis for the literal reading of Genesis. How can we prove it through experimentation. Anyone have any ideas concerning that? Most of the outspoken creationists, such as the guys at Answers in Genesis, don't do any real testing. As a creationist, that drives me crazy. How can you argue something if you can't even prove it.? That's the job of a scientist, to find out the truth, and be able to back it up with evidence. So, does anyone have an hypothesis concerning the literal creation?

Hi LK,

I appreciate your position, but then I'm surprised you identify yourself as a 'christian'. What empirical proof do you have that God exists?

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

 

[mark kennedy]

The thing that comes to mind would be either molecular mechanisms involved in adaptations or perhaps psuedo-genes and a model for how they worked before being broken by mutations. Some alternative to mutations for improved fitness that are a normal function of the genomic machinery.

That's all I can think of, it's an interesting thought though.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Hey everyone. What I want to discuss in this topic are hypothesis for the literal reading of Genesis. How can we prove it through experimentation. Anyone have any ideas concerning that? Most of the outspoken creationists, such as the guys at Answers in Genesis, don't do any real testing. As a creationist, that drives me crazy. How can you argue something if you can't even prove it.? That's the job of a scientist, to find out the truth, and be able to back it up with evidence. So, does anyone have an hypothesis concerning the literal creation?

You should find these presentations very interesting and should provide you some with the answers that you seek.

Browse Media - The Genesis Conflict - English - Amazing Discoveries TV

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

I have no idea. I would imagine something different than what you or I have, given that the predominant philosophical paradigm of his day was not modernism.

I'm not sure why this would be the case. Regardless of God's relationship with the people of Israel, I don't think we see an enormous philosophical shift in them from that of the surrounding cultures.



This may be the case, but what does it have to do with the basic question of the prevailing philosophical paradigms of the day and age? Regardless of the theological differences between the people of Israel and other ancient peoples, it's quite obvious from the OT writings in relation to other ANE literature that the Israelites shared some basic and fundamental philosophical assumptions.



Again, what does "true account of history" mean? To the modern mind, this presumes a whole host of assumptions wrapped up in objectivist historicity, the evaluation of evidence, etc. Did the ancient mind share these assumptions about history? If the literature that they left behind is any indication, I think it's quite clear that the answer is no. This is not to pass judgment on their philosophical assumptions, nor to say that theirs was deficient or superior. The point is that it was most definitely different, and so requires that we do our best in suspending the assumptions which we make regarding "history" when we read their "historical" accounts.



How do you propose to establish these claims? You are assuming quite a bit about their philosophical assumptions regarding history, but have yet to even describe what these assumptions were. To me, this seems to indicate that you are super-imposing your modernist assumptions about historicity upon them, effectively making your philosophical presuppositions normative for the evaluation of all human history. This seems to me to be a bit of stretch.



Based on what you've written thus far, I still don't understand why the creationist would start here. Until you have established the philosophical underpinnings of the "historical" writings within Genesis and shown them to be amenable to a modernistic approach, a jump to a default of modernistic historicity seems to be quite the leap indeed.

I think this line of questioning is moot, considering the doctrine Paul taught. Paul said by one man's transgression (Adam. Paul can't be talking about anyone else, it wouldn't make sense), we were all made sinners. Likewise by one man's obedience (Jesus), many will be made righteous. Paul also talked about how Eve was deceived by the snake. All of those things point in the direction that Paul took Genesis as history, in the modern sense of the word. So Genesis was just a tale the people thought up just to explain the world around them, then Jesus must also be a tale and Christians are wasting their time. Why should we accept Jesus as history, and Genesis as tale? Especially given that both Matthew and Luke's Gospels give a line of descent that goes all the way back to Adam.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

My first thoughts on the matter are :
It is the scientist role to prove things using science
It is the believers role to believe things by faith.
Now a scientist who is a believer might want to do both. The difficulty seems to be that while many proofs like the rapid formation of coal (and diamonds) has been achieved, the realisation of a young earth and a world wide flood has been scientifically ignored in favour of a Godless beginning.

Of course I don't consider faith as just taking things as is, without any evidence for believing what you believe. Faith is simply having trust in someone, and that trust was built upon reason. Ultimately, scientists who are believers, are yet to give great evidence for the historicity of Genesis.

Hi LK,

I appreciate your position, but then I'm surprised you identify yourself as a 'christian'. What empirical proof do you have that God exists?

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

The empirical proof should be my life. Scientists should be able to put me under a microscope, and come away with the existence of God. My life should reflect Jesus, and Jesus did many things and set many people free. (Beyond what rehab programs can do, and beyond what surgery can do.) Jesus said we would be doing what He did, and greater things at that. This is how God chose to reveal Himself, the empirical proof, theoretically. However, there's no question Christians aren't reflecting what is said about Jesus. I believe it's because Jesus' teachings have been muddled over the past almost 2000 years. It's said God went with the original apostles, confirming their word. The word they spoke was given to them by Jesus. So God was actually confirming Jesus' word. If we aren't speaking it, God's not going to confirm it. Meaning no miracles. I want to examine this theory.


Other than that, I'm searching for empirical proof of the Exodus. That would help prove God's existence. I also have an idea for an experiment that would test out the effects the global flood would have on rock, that is testing to see if the flood mentioned in Genesis could have an impact on the results of dating rock.

The thing that comes to mind would be either molecular mechanisms involved in adaptations or perhaps psuedo-genes and a model for how they worked before being broken by mutations. Some alternative to mutations for improved fitness that are a normal function of the genomic machinery.

That's all I can think of, it's an interesting thought though.

Thanks very much for this infomation. Can you explain further concerning these things? Possibly some experiment idea to test them out.

You should find these presentations very interesting and should provide you some with the answers that you seek.

I'll definitely take a look at them, thanks!

 

[truthinapologetics]

​

I think this line of questioning is moot, considering the doctrine Paul taught. Paul said by one man's transgression (Adam. Paul can't be talking about anyone else, it wouldn't make sense), we were all made sinners. Likewise by one man's obedience (Jesus), many will be made righteous. Paul also talked about how Eve was deceived by the snake. All of those things point in the direction that Paul took Genesis as history, in the modern sense of the word.

How so? It is a big stretch to move from claiming that some thought something "happened" to establishing that they though something "happened" in the same sense that the modern mind thinks of historicity. You have yet to even address this.

So Genesis was just a tale the people thought up just to explain the world around them

I never suggested that this was the ancients' view of Genesis or other mythological literature. If this is what you understand by the literary role of mythos, you have a seriously misguided and deficient understanding.

...then Jesus must also be a tale and Christians are wasting their time.

Why is this a necessary conclusion? To advocate that one part of Scripture is literarily mythological does not necessarily mean that the whole of Scripture is. The Scriptures were written across hundreds of years by many people for many different reasons. That there is so much diversity in the nature of the literature is part of what makes it so compelling.

Why should we accept Jesus as history, and Genesis as tale? Especially given that both Matthew and Luke's Gospels give a line of descent that goes all the way back to Adam.

Well, at some point you cannot accept Jesus as "history" in the modern sense, given that modern historical investigation can only deal with the natural. If Jesus is really the Godman of Christian belief, there is only so far that historical investigation can take you before the claims of who Jesus is and was are beyond the pale of historical criticism.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Perhaps there might be honest scientists out there who could explain the approach they take to carbon dating oil (and other fossil fuels) by passing off the young age result as some kind of fault in the dating method. It seems that the thousands of years result rather than the millions they prefer is too confronting so the excuse is made that we (they) know how old it is so there is no need to test it. Gives us a lot of hope in the "scientific" method eh?

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps there might be honest scientists out there who could explain the approach they take to carbon dating oil (and other fossil fuels) by passing off the young age result as some kind of fault in the dating method. It seems that the thousands of years result rather than the millions they prefer is too confronting so the excuse is made that we (they) know how old it is so there is no need to test it. Gives us a lot of hope in the "scientific" method eh?

Because they are used to equipment and techniques in every area of science to have limitations. In fact they expected carbon dating to suffer from contamination from modern CO2 because there is so much of it in the air in their labs, because they breath out CO2 all the time themselves and they know how the molecules cling to surfaces like the the samples they are trying to measure and to the very equipment they used to measure C14 content. In fact the reason they measured the C14 content from samples they knew wouldn't have any of its own C14 left, like graphite and diamonds was to find out how much contamination they should expect from contamination from atmospheric CO2.

When they found the sort of levels of C14 they were expecting from contamination, why would they suddenly think instead the equipment must have been unexpectedly free from contamination and the samples in fact were very young when they were taken from geological strata whose age had been measured by multiple dating techniques on equipment not struggling beyond the range of its maximum resolution?

You see they had clear readings showing us the age of these samples while the nearest thing to evidence for a young earth Creationists have is expected background noise.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Because they are used to equipment and techniques in every area of science to have limitations. In fact they expected carbon dating to suffer from contamination from modern CO2 because there is so much of it in the air in their labs, because they breath out CO2 all the time themselves and they know how the molecules cling to surfaces like the the samples they are trying to measure and to the very equipment they used to measure C14 content. In fact the reason they measured the C14 content from samples they knew wouldn't have any of its own C14 left, like graphite and diamonds was to find out how much contamination they should expect from contamination from atmospheric CO2.

When they found the sort of levels of C14 they were expecting from contamination, why would they suddenly think instead the equipment must have been unexpectedly free from contamination and the samples in fact were very young when they were taken from geological strata whose age had been measured by multiple dating techniques on equipment not struggling beyond the range of its maximum resolution?

You see they had clear readings showing us the age of these samples while the nearest thing to evidence for a young earth Creationists have is expected background noise.
__________________

See what I mean

 

[Papias]

regarding the OP -


It depends on your view of the omphalos hypothesis (the idea that God created everything with the "appearance of age").

If you accept the omphalos hypothesis, then no test can give evidence against creationism (and similarly, no text can support creationism), because the expected evidence from either history (literal creationism or common descent) is identical.

On the other hand, if you reject the omphalos hypothesis, then there are many ways to test a literal reading of Genesis 1 as a hypothesis. These include all the various dating methods, the comparison of dating methods, the different lines of evidence for common descent (not just fossils, but genetic evidence, phylogenic evidence, biochemical evidence, etc), as well as design considerations we see in the animal world, among others.



lantern wrote:

Other than that, I'm searching for empirical proof of the Exodus. That would help prove God's existence. I also have an idea for an experiment that would test out the effects the global flood would have on rock, that is testing to see if the flood mentioned in Genesis could have an impact on the results of dating rock.

Because these events are not described as part of the creation itself, it is easier to reject the omphalos hypothesis, and as such, they are more clearly testable, and there is a lot of evidence related to both of them.

With regard to a global flood, geologic evidence is abundant. So abundant, that even 180 years ago, geologists (who were, at the time, all Christians), could see that a literal, global flood never happened. This is reaffirmed in modern statements by geological organizations who now have even more extensive evidence.

With regard to the Exodus, that is a smaller scale event, so there is comparatively less evidence. However, there too, there seems to be clear evidence that the Exodus never happened, or at least not as the book of Exodus describes. There is a lot of places to look, and a good overview of the Exodus is available in scholarly works like "Exodus", by Carol Meyers, and other sources. A simple place to look (certainly not comprehensive) is Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_exodus

These stories affirm the overall message of God, regardless of whether or not they actually happened - just as Jesus' parable of the lost sheep conveys the overall message of God, regardless of whether or not it actually happened.


Papias

 

[truthinapologetics]

Other than that, I'm searching for empirical proof of the Exodus. That would help prove God's existence.

Nope. Verifying the historicity of Exodus (from a modernist conception of history) would do absolutley nothing to help prove God's existence. All it would prove is that particular verified events in Exodus occurrred as recorded. That does nothing whatsoever to establish the existence of God.

 

[Assyrian]

See what I mean

Certainly says a lot.

 

[Papias]

In a related thread, lantern was looking at flood geology and the idea of the flood "throwing off" the dating methods. This is from there:


Um, please look into the life of Adam Sedgewick. He is a Christian minister, and the last flood supporter who was also a real geologist.

Also - remember that there are literally dozens of dating methods, and they are based on different phenomena (not just radioactive decay). Some are based on crystallization rates, some on coral growth, some on the fact that pebbles sink faster than silt, and so on. The point is that of these dozens of techniques, they all agree with, and confirm each other. It's not enough to say that "maybe the heat and water could affect the chemicals". It would have to have affected all these dozens of different properties, across literally thousands of samples, so that each various method just happened to give the same "wrong" answer as the other methods.

That's why so many different whole fields of science (each made up partially or mostly of Christians) agree that there was never a global flood. The evidence is so vast that a person studying it their whole life could only learn a fraction of a percent of it - yet when literally millions of people (again, mostly Christians) get together to review their conclusions from each studying a lifetimes worth of evidence - they all see that practically everyone has found flood geology to have no support in reality.

For instance, here is a statement from millions of professional geologists - those who know the rock evidence the best, including many Christians - rejecting flood geology.

Geological Society of America (2001) | NCSE

In Christ-

Papias