I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Job 33:6 · Feb 21, 2021

BobRyan said:
And it is not a transitional form.

=======================================

Collin Patterson - Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

=================
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

====================================

so then while I do find "stories easy enough to tell" to be entertaining - that is about it for the stories -

This is just more dishonesty. Who actually believes that Stephen J Gould wasn't a huge advocate and teacher of transitional fossils? You may as well be saying that Lou Dobbs doesn't believe in Jesus.

Job 33:6 · Feb 21, 2021

BobRyan said:
Just so we can head off any red herrings that may show up - you do agree that the fossil succession seen in the fossil record has been around for a while -- it did not just pop up in the last 10 or 20 years.. agreed?

Yes, the fossil succession has been around since fossils have existed, which would mean that it is over a billion years old.

Job 33:6 · Feb 21, 2021

Job 33:6 · Feb 21, 2021

BobRyan said:
Lots of arguments for why fish don't walk - no one is doubting that.

coelacanths have not evolved (into something else) at all in 400 million years. It is a Paleozoic fossil still living with us to this very day coelacanth and so still in the very latest fossil record not just an ancient one where it then vanishes. It is there the whole time ... unchanged rather than evolved-to-some-other-species..

Simpson already pointed out that there is "a way" to align fossils to tell a story when he unwittingly published the fraudulently "arranged fossil" series created by Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley .

You see it still on display today in the Smithsonian's fraudulent smooth orthogenic transition where fossils were "arranged" to show the much imagined progression.

Lots of good "stories" for how that transition was "the best illustration" of evolution.

Then you take 'a feature' and label it "a transitional feature" even though no such transition occurred. Its a circular argument.

=============================

Neither of the lobe-fin fish examples - walked. None of the lobe-fin fish (and that includes Tiktaalic) have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate. And they did not walk on their heads, or eyes either

ok -- we see the "need" for "arranged sequences" and find them to be flawed.

Fossil record is sparse if one believes in evolution... very sparse. So then guesses abound.

Completeness of the Fossil Record

This is just more dishonesty. There are morphological differences observed in Devonian ceolacanth species, carboniferous ceolacanth species and modern ceolacanth species.

See the following research for descriptions of each:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2012.657317

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Cretaceous-Era Coelacanths Grew As Big As Great White Sharks | Paleontology | Sci-News.com -giant prehistoric ceolacanth, a species of ceolacanth that is morphologically different than the species of today.

PrincetonGuy · Feb 22, 2021

East of Eden said:
Jesus believed in a literal Adam. As a follower of His I have no right to say He was wrong.

One of the fundamental teachings of Christianity from the beginning is that Jesus was both divine and human. In His humanity, he had a human brain with its limitations. He knew only what His Father taught him, and what he learned from his family and neighbors. Therefore, He grew up believing that the earth was flat and that all of the rest of the first eleven chapters of Genesis was an accurate account of actual events in history. However, the earth is NOT flat and Genesis 1-11 is written in the same genre of literature as are epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends. God is God, and He made up His own rules concerning the inspiration of Scripture, and He has never been bound by the conventions of religious men and women.

Ligurian · May 28, 2021

LoveGodHateSin said:
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? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam?

Must be some reason God says "the seed of the woman"
rather than "the germ plasm of the man", right?

"Generation after generation, bodies die and return to the dust, but the seed continues in an unbroken line reaching, in fact, uncorrupted in the woman..."
Seed of the Woman - Pt.II, ch.18

Death came-through(or is) the serpent, not mankind.

They chose the serpent over God.
They chose Moses over God.
They chose a king over God.
They chose a temple over the mercy of God.
They chose all the idols of all the world...
but still, God changes not.
____________
If only Adamites carry this sin-gene,
then all the preadamites must be safe.
{Whew! say all the Cro-Magnons.}

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2021

LoveGodHateSin said:
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?

Cheer up, my friend. I've got some good news.

Creationism cannot be rebutted with science, since God did not create the universe through natural processes.

He created it via completed acts.

Specifically, He created the universe in six days, using a series of miracles that increased the amount of mass/energy from zero to its current level.

Thus any rebuttal that attempts to use deep time (distant stars, radiometric dating, radiohalos, whatever) has just defeated itself.

Nothing "grew old" during the Creation Week.

In short, there is no physical evidence whatsoever that can rebut Creationism, since none was generated.

And if none was generated, none was left behind to study.

tdidymas · Jun 8, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Cheer up, my friend. I've got some good news.

Creationism cannot be rebutted with science, since God did not create the universe through natural processes.

He created it via completed acts.

Specifically, He created the universe in six days, using a series of miracles that increased the amount of mass/energy from zero to its current level.

Thus any rebuttal that attempts to use deep time (distant stars, radiometric dating, radiohalos, whatever) has just defeated itself.

Nothing "grew old" during the Creation Week.

In short, there is no physical evidence whatsoever that can rebut Creationism, since none was generated.

And if none was generated, none was left behind to study.

Yes, God created all things, and did it outside of natural processes, I agree.

Nevertheless, how do you explain the observance of supernova events up to 10 billion light years away? I've read all the creationist arguments about the light travel time problem, and none of them are feasible explanations, as all of them have fundamental unresolved problems outside of "its a miracle" speculation.

The fact is, those supernova events imply more than a 10 billion year history of the universe. God doesn't lie, so that is a fact that must be considered and explained, because it contradicts a universe created 6k years ago.

So there are only 2 ways to counter this contradiction: (1) it's a mystery not solvable (which is the default), or (2) The traditional young-universe interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

I suggest that the traditional scientific interpretation of Gen. 1 is incorrect, because the Bible is not a science textbook, and Gen. 1 was not meant to be a scientific account. It was meant to counter the mythical origin narratives of the day, and the usage of "in 6 days God created..." is a religious statement, not a scientific one.

But do you have a viable explanation of the supernova event issue, since you claim that Creationism can't be rebutted? Do you have a version of Creationism in mind in which the light travel time issue is not a rebuttal of it?

East of Eden · Jun 8, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Cheer up, my friend. I've got some good news.

Creationism cannot be rebutted with science, since God did not create the universe through natural processes.

He created it via completed acts.

Specifically, He created the universe in six days, using a series of miracles that increased the amount of mass/energy from zero to its current level.

Thus any rebuttal that attempts to use deep time (distant stars, radiometric dating, radiohalos, whatever) has just defeated itself.

And what time measurement do they use? Earth time, or time in Black Holes, which is very different if not non-existent?

Nothing "grew old" during the Creation Week.

In short, there is no physical evidence whatsoever that can rebut Creationism, since none was generated.

And if none was generated, none was left behind to study.

I also don't think when God creates the New Earth it will take Him billions of years to do so.

There are billions of pieces of information in what Darwin thought was a simple cell, perhaps evolutionists can tell us where else we see information that wasn't put there by intelligence?

East of Eden · Jun 8, 2021

tdidymas said:
Yes, God created all things, and did it outside of natural processes, I agree.

Nevertheless, how do you explain the observance of supernova events up to 10 billion light years away? I've read all the creationist arguments about the light travel time problem, and none of them are feasible explanations, as all of them have fundamental unresolved problems outside of "its a miracle" speculation.

The fact is, those supernova events imply more than a 10 billion year history of the universe. God doesn't lie, so that is a fact that must be considered and explained, because it contradicts a universe created 6k years ago.

So there are only 2 ways to counter this contradiction: (1) it's a mystery not solvable (which is the default), or (2) The traditional young-universe interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

I suggest that the traditional scientific interpretation of Gen. 1 is incorrect, because the Bible is not a science textbook, and Gen. 1 was not meant to be a scientific account. It was meant to counter the mythical origin narratives of the day, and the usage of "in 6 days God created..." is a religious statement, not a scientific one.

But do you have a viable explanation of the supernova event issue, since you claim that Creationism can't be rebutted? Do you have a version of Creationism in mind in which the light travel time issue is not a rebuttal of it?

How is that different than when Jesus in the miracle of the loaves and fishes where He made fish with an apparent age of let's say, one year, when in fact they were several minutes old?

If you want to discard the first three chapters of Genesis because it can't be reconciled with our finite and fallen human reasoning, what other parts of the Bible should we ignore?

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2021

tdidymas said:
But do you have a viable explanation of the supernova event issue, since you claim that Creationism can't be rebutted? Do you have a version of Creationism in mind in which the light travel time issue is not a rebuttal of it?

Good question!

I have a thread on this very subject here: SN1987A

If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

tdidymas · Jun 8, 2021

East of Eden said:
How is that different than when Jesus in the miracle of the loaves and fishes where He made fish with an apparent age of let's say, one year, when in fact they were several minutes old?

If you want to discard the first three chapters of Genesis because it can't be reconciled with our finite and fallen human reasoning, what other parts of the Bible should we ignore?

That's not a valid comparison, because the fish could well have been drawn providentially into the net. I think you assume too much. The fish story doesn't work.

I'm talking about event history. If you see a broken door in a house, you don't assume that the house was built yesterday just because it's the first time you saw it. The broken door indicates a history of the house being built some time before, and that things happened to break the door. When Adam was created, he didn't have cuts and scrapes and scars on his body the first day, as if he had a 20 year history of trimming trees and brush.

So why don't you just get right to it, and explain the light travel time problem? Certainly you see that it's a problem, because if God created the light event (supernova) 6k years ago, without a star actually exploding, then there is something wrong with the picture. It's as if God is lying to us, showing us light from stars that should be 10B light years away, but there is actually nothing out there, just light. But even if there are actually stars 10B light years away, the light coming to us shows a supernova event that never actually happened. There is something wrong with the picture that you are drawing of a 6k year old universe.

I propose that it's not the Bible that has the problem, but rather your interpretation of it.

tdidymas · Jun 8, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Good question!

I have a thread on this very subject here: SN1987A

If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

Not credible. Reads like wild imagination. Why should I believe anything you say, then?

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2021

tdidymas said:
Why should I believe anything you say, then?

Then don't.

And I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.

SkyWriting · Sep 5, 2021

LoveGodHateSin said:
If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam?

A story doesn't have to be a specific literal event.
It can be a generalized true event.
Like if we say a person is saved, we don't link that to our vision of
Jesus erasing our name in one book and writing it in another physical book.

PrincetonGuy · Sep 6, 2021

LoveGodHateSin said:
Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. 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

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

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? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

Our salvation is solely dependent upon what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross and our personal relationship with Him. Therefore, it is NOT dependent upon the cultural beliefs of the ancient Hebrew people or the sagas that they handed down from generation to generation through which God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to teach us about Himself and about us in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Moreover, whether Adam was a real man in history who committed “the original sin” is irrelevant to the fact that we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Furthermore, whether God chose to create us though Adam and Eve, or through the process of evolution, is irrelevant to the fact that we all have sinned but “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Anti-evolution teaching is not a mere distraction from the gospel—it has caused tens of millions of our young people to come to the conclusion that Christians are both ignorant and foolish. However, this conclusion is false! See for example the 636-page commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 by Claus Westermann.

JacksBratt · Sep 6, 2021

PrincetonGuy said:
Our salvation is solely dependent upon what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross and our personal relationship with Him. Therefore, it is NOT dependent upon the cultural beliefs of the ancient Hebrew people or the sagas that they handed down from generation to generation through which God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to teach us about Himself and about us in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Moreover, whether Adam was a real man in history who committed “the original sin” is irrelevant to the fact that we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Furthermore, whether God chose to create us though Adam and Eve, or through the process of evolution, is irrelevant to the fact that we all have sinned but “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Anti-evolution teaching is not a mere distraction from the gospel—it has caused tens of millions of our young people to come to the conclusion that Christians are both ignorant and foolish. However, this conclusion is false! See for example the 636-page commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 by Claus Westermann.

The evolutionary tale is fabricated to remove God from the picture.
The Darwinian Evolutionary fable can be feasible without God.

The bible was written in simple plain terms that a child can understand and believe. It demands a designer, creator supernatural being.

Even in the "theory" of evolution, they totally skip the whole part of where life came from. They ignore this simple and necessary step. Ask them. Where did the first cell get "life". They will tell you that that is not in the theory. They just come in when it's already alive, can replicate, and through some miracle has DNA ( a blue print with enough information to fill volumes of text books. Made up of strands of complex combinations of Proteins. Proteins which are on and of their own, also, complex chemical structures necessary for the building of any living thing. )

Even a single cell simple being has extremely complex DNA and RNA. It would have cytoplasm, mitochondria, ribosomes, a cell membrane that is smart enough to allow things that are good in and waste out. In itself, this single cell being would be a mathematically impossible structure to have formed spontaneously. Darwin had no idea of the complexity of each and every cell, on its own, let alone the immense amount of information stored in DNA and the complexity of DNA.

But... jump over that and dive right in to what happened after this totally impossible event took place.

coffee4u · Sep 6, 2021

PrincetonGuy said:
Moreover, whether Adam was a real man in history who committed “the original sin” is irrelevant

It's not irrelevant as it shows where sin came from and what it caused -death.
If sin caused death then death was not simply a by product of life going on for millions of years of evolution either. It shows death as a foreigner, an enemy that came in due to sin.
It is also reaffirmed by scripture that it was one man that caused it not all of mankind.
Romans 5:12 ►Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

So is death just a normal by product of life or is it the direct result of sin? This is an important distinction.

And don't say it simply means spiritual death, Adam and Eve were told they would literally die as well.
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

This happened because he listen to his wife and was disobedient to God.

SkyWriting · Sep 7, 2021

LoveGodHateSin said:
Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. 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

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

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? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

The Bible says that nothing was made or created "Instantly".
This solves the imagined inerrancy problem.

JacksBratt · Sep 7, 2021

SkyWriting said:
The Bible says that nothing was made or created "Instantly".
This solves the imagined inerrancy problem.

Chapter and verse please.

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Cro-Magnon

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Librarian

Veteran

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Searching for Truth

Similar threads