I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

[Speedwell]

The nuances of the issue are not inferior to the summary, but are the reality itself.

So, any answer I can give you even in a few thousand words will be found by most on your side to be woefully flawed. LOL

So you might imagine what I perceive that I am up against by even attempting an answer in a few short paragraphs.

So I can only hope that you will agree that the nuances for the converse position are equally at issue for any answer you might give in denial.

In other words, whether we teach that God created specially in six actual days or, instead, by way of what we think are real providential processes ("reality of evolution is an awfully big topic" talk), the acceptance of either view is not neutral to all other matters.

We can debate all our own lives over which teaching is more supported in the physical reality that we study. But the issue, in my view, is which one, apart from faith in the actual life, death, and resurrection of Christ, fails to lead to such belief. For, I am convinced that merely the 'science' claims of your side have little, if any, power to cause those who accept them while being ignorant of the Gospel to feel a need for Christ. Such persons may realize a need for Christ from other sources, but those said claims do not, of their own, positively inform on that need. If anything, those claims, of their own voice, cause confusion, at best.

Tell me I'm wrong. I predict that you will want to tell me that it is a more complex issue than what I make it out to be.


.

I wonder what you imagine "my side" to be? There are a number of Christian denominations which reject evolution, but also reject the YEC doctrines of literal inerrancy, etc. What side are they on?

 

[com7fy8]

At some point, "you just don't understand evolution" becomes the only rational response.

But even if we understand the idea, this does not mean it is true. Explaining something and doing scientific testing can bring very different results

For example, oftentimes, medical experts have been sure of something, until real scientific testing results and reality came into the mix.

 

[com7fy8]

At some point, "you just don't understand evolution" becomes the only rational response.

God's ways are "past finding out", we have in Romans 11:33; so it is possible that no one will figure out the ways which have produced what we have now

 

[Armoured]

But even if we understand the idea, this does not mean it is true. Explaining something and doing scientific testing can bring very different results

For example, oftentimes, medical experts have been sure of something, until real scientific testing results and reality came into the mix.

Yes. And?

Evolutionary Theory MAY be wrong. An scientifically literate person will freely admit that.

BUT... as far as science goes, evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the evidence we see. It is POSSIBLE evolutionary theory is wrong. But based on scientific methodology and evidence, not very likely.

 

[Armoured]

But even if we understand the idea, this does not mean it is true. Explaining something and doing scientific testing can bring very different results

For example, oftentimes, medical experts have been sure of something, until real scientific testing results and reality came into the mix.

Yes. And?

Evolutionary Theory MAY be wrong. An scientifically literate person will freely admit that.

BUT... as far as science goes, evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the evidence we see. It is POSSIBLE evolutionary theory is wrong. But based on scientific methodology and evidence, not very likely.

It would be incredibly poor scientific methodology to discard the evidence you have, because you might be wrong and be disproven in future. Scientific advance is iterative, it deals with what we know now, not with what we may know tomorrow.

 

[Armoured]

But even if we understand the idea, this does not mean it is true. Explaining something and doing scientific testing can bring very different results

For example, oftentimes, medical experts have been sure of something, until real scientific testing results and reality came into the mix.

Yes. And?

Evolutionary Theory MAY be wrong. An scientifically literate person will freely admit that.

BUT... as far as science goes, evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the evidence we see. It is POSSIBLE evolutionary theory is wrong. But based on scientific methodology and evidence, not very likely.

It would be incredibly poor scientific methodology to discard the evidence you have, because you might be wrong and be disproven in future. Scientific advance is iterative, it deals with what we know now, not with what we may know tomorrow.

 

[Armoured]

God's ways are "past finding out", we have in Romans 11:33; so it is possible that no one will figure out the ways which have produced what we have now

That isn't science.

 

[ronandcarol]

Hello everyone,

There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.
Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
An Index to Creationist Claims
Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism?
Thank you!

This is how. I would not put more faith in what I read online at various website MORE than I would believe what the Bible states. The Word of God clearly states, by day, how He created everything. It also states in the Bible that God cannot lie.
Here is a news flash, "Not everything that you read online is true".
ronandcarol

 

[ronandcarol]

Hello everyone,

There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.
Ken Ham's 10 facts that prove creationism - Debunked
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
An Index to Creationist Claims
Falsifiability of creationism - RationalWiki

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism?
Thank you!

This is how. I would not put more faith in what I read online at various website MORE than I would believe what the Bible states. The Word of God clearly states, by day, how He created everything. It also states in the Bible that God cannot lie.
Here is a news flash, "Not everything that you read online is true".
ronandcarol

 

[Papias]

Don't you mean to say that the set of evidences from which both (a) metaphysical naturalism ....

What? You do understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, right? This is a Christians only forum - metaphysical naturalists are not allowed. Methological naturalism, on the other hand, is something that Christians accept, and something that you yourself use to guide your actions every day. Suggesting that Christians can't be methodological naturalists is like claiming that Christians can't use math.

You make it sound too much like atheism is steamrolling your own Christianity, and leaving the Bible to pick up its own pieces after your out-of-the-way Christian hamlet has been decimated by this 'reality of evolution'.

That makes no sense. So has the person who accepts that the earth is a globe let atheism steamroll their Christianity, leaving the Bible to pick up its own pieces after their out-of-the-way Christian hamlet has been decimated by this 'reality of 'round earthism'? Evolution is completely compatible with Christianity. That's why most churches (by population) allow evolution acceptance.

And, do I assume correctly that you are perfectly aware that every one of the 'evidences' of evolution you cite have ongoing back-and-forth rebuttals and counter-rebuttals between evolutionists and creationists?

Of course. But the fact that flat earthers have "back and forth rebuttals" to every claim by those who accept a spherical earth is by no means evidence that any of those rebuttals hold any water. The same is true of the "rebuttals" by evolution deniers.

Do I assume correctly that your use of 'practically' there is not meant to steamroll anyone? You make it sound like anyone who knows anything would and should just assent to your 'reality' of mice-to-men evolution. Surely, that is not what you intend to do here, is it? Make everyone hand over their minds to that 'reality' without a second thought, without any healthy remnant of skepticism?

It's meant to point out reality. It is reality that practically all scientists accept evolution, just as practically all scientists accept a spherical earth. If you pointed that out to a Christian who believed in a flat earth because that's what their Bible says, then would you be "Making them hand over their minds to that 'reality' without a second thought, without any healthy remnant of skepticism?"? And, a footnote - "mice to men" only shows that you don't understand evolution. None of our ancestors were mice, or any other type of rodent.

Just because you've bought it hook line and sinker doesn't mean others should just forget the actual debate. I feel sure you know it exists.

As I've pointed out before, there is no "actual debate" among those Christians who are biologists. There is a debate among Christians who lack the understanding of biology that full study, graduation, and research brings.

Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

What I am not sure of is whether you have dealt with the case-by-case counters to that 'practically' of yours. If such cases exist, you must ask why they exist. They started out believing as you do, and, then, for some reason ....

There are millions of scientists. They are all human beings. Out of millions of human beings, one can find crackpots who went off the rails on any issue. For instance, there are cases of people who think they have been abducted by space aliens (and probed!), and plenty of cases of Christians who decided that that evidence for Jesus was wrong and hence converted to Hinduism. If you think those few cases prove something, then you'll have to explain why the similar individual cases don't disprove Christianity or prove alien probing.

In Christ-

Papias

P.S. I couldn't figure out your answer to this. Could you answer it simply? What exactly is this "very thing upon which every abomination is ever justified"?

What is this "very thing upon which every abomination is ever justified" that you think I am guilty of by not being a YEC?

 

[sfs]

First, check out:
www.uncommondescent.com

What makes them unique is the skeptic zone. They don't censor critics, rather do an outstanding job answering every objection.

Who doesn't censor critics? uncommondescent is notorious for deleting comments and banning posters who oppose intelligent design.

 

[expos4ever]

On the Net, in discussing with non-creationists, I have offered reasons why I find that evolution is not possible, but all I have gotten is, "You don't understand evolution," but with no clarification of what I'm supposed to understand, and nothing which obviously proves it. So, it is possible that people will not level with you.

But the nature of evolution is such that it would be very difficult if not impossible, even for an expert, to "obviously prove it". Your post seems to show that you believe that if evolution were true, it would be easy for you to understand the evidence. But that is a huge assumption that almost certainly does not pan out. I believe in evolution simply because tens of thousands of highly-trained experts, who use the robust scientific method, declare that it's true.

I certainly do not expect to be able to understand the science. That's why we have experts.

 

[Papias]

Your post seems to show that you believe that if evolution were true, it would be easy for you to understand the evidence. But that is a huge assumption that almost certainly does not pan out. I believe in evolution simply because tens of thousands of highly-trained experts, who use the robust scientific method, declare that it's true.

I certainly do not expect to be able to understand the science. That's why we have experts.

Exactly. There are many things like this. Quantum physics is true - and very, very few people understand it. I certainly don't understand it, and I'm smart enough to recognize the fact that experts understand things better than I do. That's why I don't do my own brain surgery at home.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[com7fy8]

evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the evidence we see.

If a scientific idea is true, does this not mean it works according to principles which are testable and predictable?

In the case of meteorology yes there are predictable and testable principles, but this does not mean we have the ability to keep track of them, though. So, I can see that, also, it could be that evolution could be so complicated that scientists never would be able to figure it out and prove it.

However . . . if all material activity is purely because of material principles doing what they do, then how come they started the formation of the universe when they did, and not in some place earlier in all eternity?

Or, do you believe that God started it all, but then material physical and molecular and other principles took it from there?

 

[expos4ever]

If a scientific idea is true, does this not mean it works according to principles which are testable and predictable?

Not in the sense that many "creationists" think. From Scientific American:

Creationist Objection: Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

 

[expos4ever]

So, I can see that, also, it could be that evolution could be so complicated that scientists never would be able to figure it out and prove it.

Just to be clear: science is not in the business of "proving" anything. Instead, science develops explanations for observed phenomena. Some creationists will distort this fact into the following argument:

1. By their own words, scientists claim that evolution has not been proven;
2. Therefore, we are justified in rejecting evolution.

This is like arguing that since we cannot prove beyond doubt that smoking is a causal risk in developing cancer, we can reject the notion that smoking causes cancer in many cases.

 

[expos4ever]

However . . . if all material activity is purely because of material principles doing what they do, then how come they started the formation of the universe when they did, and not in some place earlier in all eternity?

I agree with the spirit of the question, although I would challenge your seeming assumption that "time" has a meaning in the absence of the material world. Either way, I assume your point is that the existence of the universe is a profound mystery. If so, I heartily agree. However, this is not really a strong argument for "God" because the same mystery is there in respect to God's existence.

 

[com7fy8]

I agree with the spirit of the question, although I would challenge your seeming assumption that "time" has a meaning in the absence of the material world. Either way, I assume your point is that the existence of the universe is a profound mystery. If so, I heartily agree. However, this is not really a strong argument for "God" because the same mystery is there in respect to God's existence.

Well . . . about "time" > time is measured by the relative position of the sun and our planet. But even if there were no sun or earth, wouldn't there still be time, but not being so measured????

In any case, thank you for taking the . . . time . . . to share what you have, with me

I personally do not claim that we can prove that there is God. But I do experience that God proves Himself.

Also, Hebrews 11:3 says >

"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

 

[expos4ever]

Well . . . about "time" > time is measured by the relative position of the sun and our planet. But even if there were no sun or earth, wouldn't there still be time, but not being so measured????

If you are saying that time exists apart from matter and space, I suggest most experts would disagree. The notion that time exists as an independent "thing" is appealing, but does not stand up to the evidence.

Time appears to be linked to space and matter to the extent that I believe most experts would say there would be no time if there were no space and matter.

 

[Armoured]

Or, do you believe that God started it all, but then material physical and molecular and other principles took it from there?

more or less, yes.

 

[IRONH1DE]

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism?

You're supposed to have some intellectual honesty, guy. If you are being faced with more and more evidence showing how batshit and unbelievable creationism is, maybe that's a sign that you should consider your world view is not right.

 

[Sanoy]

The most important thing you need to know here is not how to respond to those sites. What you need to know is that Christianity does not live or fall on Biblical Inerrancy. Put your faith in God not the theology of Biblical Inerrancy. The Bible is not the core miracle affirming your faith and hope, it is the Spirit of God testifying in your Spirit that you are a son of God.(Romans 8:16)

Now there are plenty of good reasons to believe in Creation ex Nihilo. It's the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values, the applicability of mathematics, and the epistemological ability of logic. It's the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, it's the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, and it's the best explanation for our position at or near center of the universe.

Love the Lord your God with all you intellect, don't shut it down and close your eyes to all else but scripture. Search out the truth with boldness. There are far more reasons to believe than not believe.