Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[lucaspa]

ive never heard this explained...in what ways do science prove creation wrong?

Science shows CREATIONISM wrong.

Creation and creationISM are two separate things.

Creation is the theological statement that God created.

CreationISM is a specific scientific theory on HOW God created.

All of science can be looked upon as HOW God created. Therefore, depending on how you believe God created, science can actually support it.

That is, if you say God created the universe via the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution, then science doesn't prove creation wrong.

In fact, you can sit back, make some popcorn, open a coke, and let science continue to show you how God created.

OTOH, if you say that God created each species separately in its present form, then there is a mountain of evidence showing this how of creation -- creationism -- to be wrong.

 

[Dayton]

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional species, it is an extinct species of bird. It does bear some resemblance to a dinosaur, but it is not a transition between the two. Bats have characteristics of both mammals and birds, that does not make them transitional between mammals and birds.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.creationism.org/

Http://www.trueorigins.net/

 

[OldBadfish]

I am willing Pete. You know me. I am a hardcore creationist.

I didn't see this thread until now, but if you read my Monkeymen thread you'll see I gave it a shot at arguing against evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

how have you proven that it is that old

Many ways. For instance, metamorphic rock can't be formed within 6,000 years. First the sedimentary rock must be formed, and then it has to be subjected slowly to heat and pressure.

The tens of miles of sedimentary rock layers can't have been laid down in less than tens of millions of years.

There are no short-lived primary nucleotides on the planet.

Those are just 3 of thousands of proofs that the earth is not young. Any geology textbook will walk you thru many more of them.

 

[David Gould]

how do we know that these actually work. how do we know that radioactive materials decay at a constant rate (not actually constant, but you know what i mean.)

The problem for young earth creationists is this: if we accept that the rates of decay are not constant then why do different radioactive dating methods all tell the same story at multiple locations and for multiple time scales?


Assume we have one group of elements telling us that item X is 100,000 years old and a second group of elements telling us that item X is 100,000 years old and a third group of elements telling us that item X is 100,000 years old. This correlation only lines up if we assume that the rates of decay are constant. In addition, each of these elements have different decay rates.

If each element fluctuated over time then we would have a serious problem in that the chances of them all lining up to give us exactly the same wrong result would be astronomical.


There are further problems with changing rates of decay. If we assume that the amount of radiation which we think occurred over 100,000 years actually occurred over the course of a much smaller time period, then all of a sudden the Earth just a short time ago - 2,000 years ago, for example - must have been significantly more radioactive.

If we stretch out the radioactive dating times to 1 billion years or more and then compress that into a 10,000 year time span (for arguments sake) then the Earth suddenly must have been 100,000 times more radioactive ...

The temperatures involved at that level of radioactivity would make the surival of humans impossible.

 

[lucaspa]

Archaeopteryx is not a transitional species, it is an extinct species of bird. It does bear some resemblance to a dinosaur, but it is not a transition between the two. Bats have characteristics of both mammals and birds, that does not make them transitional between mammals and birds.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.creationism.org/

Http://www.trueorigins.net/

The sites have played word games with you. In the classification system, everything MUST be in one group or another. There is no way to put something in between groups. Therefore Archie is classed as a bird because its descendents ended up as birds.

Archie resembles a dino so well that one of the fossils did not have feather impressions, and it was classed as Compsagnathus!

Bats have no characteristics of birds. They have wings, but the wings are not in any way like bird wings.

 

[OldBadfish]

Many ways. For instance, metamorphic rock can't be formed within 6,000 years. First the sedimentary rock must be formed, and then it has to be subjected slowly to heat and pressure.

The tens of miles of sedimentary rock layers can't have been laid down in less than tens of millions of years.

There are no short-lived primary nucleotides on the planet.

Those are just 3 of thousands of proofs that the earth is not young. Any geology textbook will walk you thru many more of them.

You underestimate the power of God.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

The problem for young earth creationists is this: if we accept that the rates of decay are not constant then why do different radioactive dating methods all tell the same story at multiple locations and for multiple time scales?


Assume we have one group of elements telling us that item X is 100,000 years old and a second group of elements telling us that item X is 100,000 years old and a third group of elements telling us that item X is 100,000 years old. This correlation only lines up if we assume that the rates of decay are constant. In addition, each of these elements have different decay rates.

If each element fluctuated over time then we would have a serious problem in that the chances of them all lining up to give us exactly the same wrong result would be astronomical.


There are further problems with changing rates of decay. If we assume that the amount of radiation which we think occurred over 100,000 years actually occurred over the course of a much smaller time period, then all of a sudden the Earth just a short time ago - 2,000 years ago, for example - must have been significantly more radioactive.

If we stretch out the radioactive dating times to 1 billion years or more and then compress that into a 10,000 year time span (for arguments sake) then the Earth suddenly must have been 100,000 times more radioactive ...

The temperatures involved at that level of radioactivity would make the surival of humans impossible.

well honestly, as an incoming junior in high school, i have no idea how radioactivity works. but is it possible that not everything started out with as much radiation or radtioactivity as you thought.
for example, could a rock that is 1 year old have the same amount of radioactive atoms as one that is 2000? like it just was made with that much?

 

[fortheloveofmike]

OTOH, if you say that God created each species separately in its present form, then there is a mountain of evidence showing this how of creation -- creationism -- to be wrong.

just to let you know there is absolutely 100% no possible way you can prove that God did not create each species individually.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You underestimate the power of God.

Of course, God can do it. But if he did do it, then he planted false evidence.

Since God cannot lie, the earth is old ... QED

 

[Tinker Grey]

just to let you know there is absolutely 100% no possible way you can prove that God did not create each species individually.

Of course, God can do it. But if he did do it, then he planted false evidence.

Since God cannot lie, the earth is old ... QED

 

[OldBadfish]

Of course, God can do it. But if he did do it, then he planted false evidence.

Since God cannot lie, the earth is old ... QED

Or he created in a way we don't understand, like accelerated creation.

Just because science suggests the earth is millions of years old, doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't make God a liar, it just means that we did not witness creation and cannot speculate on super accelerated creation.

10,000 years is enough time to compact sedimant layers and whatever, look at erosion that has taken place just over the span of 1000 years, and lets not forget about gravity crushing layers, possibly God used heavy gravity to solidify the earth, we just don't know. And neither does science with any certainty.

 

[David Gould]

well honestly, as an incoming junior in high school, i have no idea how radioactivity works. but is it possible that not everything started out with as much radiation or radtioactivity as you thought.
for example, could a rock that is 1 year old have the same amount of radioactive atoms as one that is 2000? like it just was made with that much?

If you are saying, 'God could have made the Earth anyway that he wanted to and then made it impossible for us to find anything about it - worse, he would make it so that science would always come to the wrong conclusion,' then sure. God could have done that. But in that case God would be lying to us in the creation. Most Christians reject the idea that God would lie.

If you do not know that much about radiation and radioactivity, then this is not too bad a place to start:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html


This is a Christian perspective on radiometric dating:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html


Have fun finding out about it. I learnt a lot from the above.

 

[OldBadfish]

If you are saying, 'God could have made the Earth anyway that he wanted to and then made it impossible for us to find anything about it - worse, he would make it so that science would always come to the wrong conclusion,' then sure. God could have done that. But in that case God would be lying to us in the creation. Most Christians reject the idea that God would lie.

How did God lie? If science understood and had evidence that God created, then we would have believers that believe only because science proved that God existed. He already said there are many mysteries that will be withheld, and science has proven that...

 

[David Gould]

Or he created in a way we don't understand, like accelerated creation.

Just because science suggests the earth is millions of years old, doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't make God a liar, it just means that we did not witness creation and cannot speculate on super accelerated creation.

10,000 years is enough time to compact sedimant layers and whatever, look at erosion that has taken place just over the span of 1000 years, and lets not forget about gravity crushing layers, possibly God used heavy gravity to solidify the earth, we just don't know. And neither does science with any certainty.

Badfish,

Why would God create in a way such that when humans examined the evidence scientifically we would never be able to get anywhere near the correct answers?

Isn't this exactly the same as lying to us?


How do we know that he didn't have the Bible written in such a way that when humans read it they would never be able to get anywhere near the correct answers?

We can never know that he didn't, can we?

 

[David Gould]

How did God lie? If science understood and had evidence that God created, then we would have believers that believe only because science proved that God existed.

I am saying that God did not lie.

How would the Earth being proved young prove that God created it?

Additionally, I am constantly told that I already have been given proof of God's existence. The Bible tells me that the proof of God is in the creation and that I am without excuse. So obviously Biblically proof is not a problem for God.

 

[David Gould]

I posted before your edit.

With regard to mysteries, yes, I agree. But the age of the earth is not a mystery. The earth is old. That much is clear from the evidence. If the evidence is a lie then God is lying. If God made it impossible to tell whether the Earth was old or young that would be different. But he did not. He made it such that the evidence shows the earth is old. So either the earth is old or God planted false evidence.

 

[OldBadfish]

Badfish,

Why would God create in a way such that when humans examined the evidence scientifically we would never be able to get anywhere near the correct answers?

His creation is not subjected to mans scrutiny, and was not intended to be understood, I would imagine.

Isn't this exactly the same as lying to us?

No way, God told man what he needed to know about creation, he didn't go into physics and explainations on HOW he did it, just that he did it, and he did it in a 6 day period (as evidenced by him dividing the light of day with night and called it the 1st day)

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

How do we know that he didn't have the Bible written in such a way that when humans read it they would never be able to get anywhere near the correct answers?

We can never know that he didn't, can we?

Well if you take Genesis at face value, and believe that God talked to Adam and put him to sleep, and created every animal after their own likeness, then we do know. The bible isn't a science book, it's a spiritual book, if it contained all the methods God used to create this and all the animals, and mankind, then it might be a little too lengthy and confusing. Especially because he most likely used methods that violate our own observed laws of physics and etc., making things actually worse for the believer.

 

[OldBadfish]

I am saying that God did not lie.

How would the Earth being proved young prove that God created it?

Additionally, I am constantly told that I already have been given proof of God's existence. The Bible tells me that the proof of God is in the creation and that I am without excuse. So obviously Biblically proof is not a problem for God.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Ok, maybe it's possible that the earth is older than it's inhabitants, maybe it was formed over a long period of time, and then he created the Garden and life later on, thats possible. Maybe he formed the Universe over a substantial time period, and then went on to put life here some time after earths initial formation (letting it cool down and forming it to sustain the life he intended to put here. You know maybe earth was just a rock with some water, and God decided to put life here sometime after the earths formation.

But the creation of unique species and intentional diversity of species is what I believe God is talking about, it's the things that inhabit the earth, that leaves you without excuse.

I'll give you the earth being old in and of itself, but that doesn't account for evolution, and evolution mostly goes against Gods account of his interaction of his new creations which he put upon the earth.

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

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
[5] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
[6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
[8] And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


I guess the earth could be a lot older than mankinds existence on it, it doesn't really say how long it took God to actually form the earth, I am going out on a limb here and considering that you may be correct since the bible isn't clear on the methods or time span it took God to create the cosmos.

If God is eternal, then Genesis simply says that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth, but if God is eternal then we don't really know how long the heavens and the earth were there before populating it.

Hmmmmm

 

[David Gould]

His creation is not subjected to mans scrutiny, and was not intended to be understood, I would imagine.

But Badfish we do understand some things about the creation, don't we? For example, we know how to light a fire; we know how to build a computer. So what you are trying to do is say, 'We are meant to understand some things but not others,' and yet you have no biblical basis for saying this.

The creation is supposed to self-evidently speak of the creator so that we are without excuse. That is in the Bible.

No way, God told man what he needed to know about creation, he didn't go into physics and explainations on HOW he did it, just that he did it, and he did it in a 6 day period (as evidenced by him dividing the light of day with night and called it the 1st day)

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God told man what he needed to know about creation? Okay - let us examine that statement: why exactly do humans need to know that the creation took 6 days?

Well if you take Genesis at face value, and believe that God talked to Adam and put him to sleep, and created every animal after their own likeness, then we do know. The bible isn't a science book, it's a spiritual book, if it contained all the methods God used to create this and all the animals, and mankind, then it might be a little too lengthy and confusing. Especially because he most likely used methods that violate our own observed laws of physics and etc., making things actually worse for the believer.

Why wouldn't we take God's creation at face value? For what reason do you weight the Bible more heavily than the creation itself? After all, the Bible was written by fallible men; the creation was written by God directly.