How to properly defend creationism.

[BananaSlug]

If we accept it as a miracle then I agree just where the water came from and where it went does fit into the area of 'but that it the miracle. But I'd still expect some evidence. Perhaps far less than one would expect from a 'natural' flood of the same magnitude and extent. But one piece of evidence has to remain (at least as most YECs tout the flood). There have ot be massive extinctions, or at the least die backs. Failure to have that is like failing to have wrecked ships in my little divine wind trinity.

But as an Almighty Creator being, you could erase all evidence of said miracle to make the faith in it that much more important.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow --- w/o the OP, you'd think this thread was about the Flood.

 

[Athrond]

AV: is it realy neccessary to have to spell this out?

Many, if not all, yecs tout the bible as litteral truth. If you then find an error - like the flood, or anything realy - the whole "litteral truth" argument is destroyed. And so goes YEC out the window.

Therefore the OP position is the strongest from a yecist pov.

 

[Hespera]

I am glad that my whole view of reality does not depend on finding a way to make pi=3.0 or turn a bat into a kind of bird.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV: is it realy neccessary to have to spell this out?

Many, if not all, yecs tout the bible as litteral truth. If you then find an error - like the flood, or anything realy - the whole "litteral truth" argument is destroyed. And so goes YEC out the window.

Therefore the OP position is the strongest from a yecist pov.

But there's just as much evidence for the Flood as there is for the Creation --- i.e. none --- and given you guys' mantra that one cannot prove a negative --- what's the point with this thread?

How do you guys word that other mantra of yours?

No evidence is not evidence of nothing --- (or something like that) --- I can't remember how it goes.

 

[gaara4158]

But there's just as much evidence for the Flood as there is for the Creation --- i.e. none --- and given you guys' mantra that one cannot prove a negative --- what's the point with this thread?

How do you guys word that other mantra of yours?

No evidence is not evidence of nothing --- (or something like that) --- I can't remember how it goes.

Well actually, you can prove a negative. You just have to prove the contradictory positive; for example, if you want to prove that a table isn't solid red, you just have to prove that some other color appears on it. If you want to prove that there was no flood, you just have to prove that something else happened in that time frame.

But yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just evidence of an absence of evidence. Which is why agnosticism is the way to go.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well actually, you can prove a negative.

I agree.

You just have to prove the contradictory positive; for example, if you want to prove that a table isn't solid red, you just have to prove that some other color appears on it.

Again --- I totally agree.

That's the way I show Jesus as believing in the Creation --- by mentioning Evolution's antithesis in Mark 10 ---

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I like your way of thinking.

If you want to prove that there was no flood, you just have to prove that something else happened in that time frame.

But time frame discussions don't work with YECs, as YECs believe that everything we see has been "compacted" (relatively speaking) into 6100 years, and Evolutionists believe that everything we see has been "dilated" (relatively speaking) into 4.57 billion years.

But yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you --- that's the phrase I was looking for ---

It's just evidence of an absence of evidence.

Keep looking then.

Which is why agnosticism is the way to go.

I disagree --- especially in the face of divine Documentation --- and God considers hesitation due to unbelief a very serious offense.

 

[gaara4158]

That's the way I show Jesus as believing in the Creation --- by mentioning Evolution's antithesis in Mark 10 ---

Words written on a page are not proof.

But time frame discussions don't work with YECs, as YECs believe that everything we see has been "compacted" (relatively speaking) into 6100 years, and Evolutionists believe that everything we see has been "dilated" (relatively speaking) into 4.57 billion years.

I agree, you guys do believe this for some reason. And as the OP states, the proper way to defend this is to say that there's no evidence outside the Bible for your claims, and there's no reason besides you own personal conviction to believe in it. Making up pseudoscience like dad is only going to hurt your case with actual scientists.

Keep looking then.

I've inspected the red table. There's a big round blue dot in the middle. If I keep looking, that dot still isn't going away. We've found the contradictory evidence.

I disagree --- especially in the face of divine Documentation --- and God considers hesitation due to unbelief a very serious offense.

Which is why I would never follow your God again. I don't know why you call the scriptures "Documentation"... for one, you're only supposed to capitalize the pronouns and appositives of God. Doing so with anything else, I would imagine, is blasphemous. For another, the Bible isn't documentation at all; in many cases, the books about whom they are written were written by scribes decades later, sometimes even after the main character's death. This hardly counts as divine documentation... more like the jotting down of oral tradition.

 

[AV1611VET]

For another, the Bible isn't documentation at all; in many cases, the books about whom they are written were written by scribes decades later, sometimes even after the main character's death. This hardly counts as divine documentation... more like the jotting down of oral tradition.

Well, then --- we know where the problem lies, don't we?

 

[gaara4158]

Well, then --- we know where the problem lies, don't we?

...did you just concede the point?

 

[AV1611VET]

...did you just concede the point?

Now what do you think?

 

[atomweaver]

But there's just as much evidence for the Flood as there is for the Creation --- i.e. none --- and given you guys' mantra that one cannot prove a negative --- what's the point with this thread?

The point of the thread is in the title. I think what you failed to remember when you asked the question above is that "AVVET's notions on Creation" does not equal "Creationism". Creationism includes that whole motley collection of curious and contradictory notions that Creationists have.
Other Creationists (AIG Creationists, for example) contend that the Noachian Flood did leave evidence of YEC claims... this is what is being addressed, your assertions to the contrary. You seem to forget this, is that because you wish to forget/ignore your obvious disagreements with other Creationists ( i.e. "playing dumb")? Or is it maybe because you actually do think that your ideas are the sum-total of Creationism (i.e. "being dumb")?

 

[AV1611VET]

The point of the thread is in the title. I think what you failed to remember when you asked the question above is that "AVVET's notions on Creation" does not equal "Creationism". Creationism includes that whole motley collection of curious and contradictory notions that Creationists have.

Hmmm --- you're probably right on that. I do get confused when I see "creationism" tapes, as to why they talk about the Fall, the Flood, this, that, and what-all.

"Creationism" to me, is simply a belief in the Creation [Week].

Perhaps I need to readjust my thinking to accomodate this wider range of doctrines --- but I'll never --- no, never --- discuss Creationism in the context of the Creation.

The two are exclusive, if you ask me.

I hate it when I'm trying to point out to someone the many differences between the order of God's creation vis-a-vis the order of nature's way (e.g. the earth before the sun, plants before the sun), and they want to interject with stuff like, "Why did God create Satan?" and "Why did God have to send the Flood?", and other issues that don't apply.

 

[AV1611VET]

Other Creationists (AIG Creationists, for example) contend that the Noachian Flood did leave evidence of YEC claims...

They're wrong --- aren't they?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Since it seems many YEC's on this board are having a hard time defending their religious beliefs, I've decided to show them how to properly defend creationism.

1. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.
-God created a fully mature earth just as he created fully mature plants and animals. There is no evidence to support this claim as true or false.
-Though many stars are hundreds of thousands of light years away, God simply created the lightwaves already in place. There is no evidence to support this claim as true or false.

2. The Flood.
-The flood was sent by God. There was no vapor canopy. God simply made the flood via a miracle. There is no evidence to support this claim as true or false.
-The flood waters were taken up by God. He simply vanished it away. There is no evidence to support this claim as true or false.
-There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of a worldwide flood. It was a miracle and can never be verified by science.

Can atheists really provide better arguments for creation than YEC's? Let's see...

Two points. Take care of the razor and as to your pledge, remember you are pledging to the flag and the nation it STANDS for, not that it is. It is a pledge to the ideal instance, not this instance.

 

[atomweaver]

They're wrong --- aren't they?

Yep, they're wrong.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The point of the thread is in the title. I think what you failed to remember when you asked the question above is that "AVVET's notions on Creation" does not equal "Creationism". Creationism includes that whole motley collection of curious and contradictory notions that Creationists have.
Other Creationists (AIG Creationists, for example) contend that the Noachian Flood did leave evidence of YEC claims... this is what is being addressed, your assertions to the contrary. You seem to forget this, is that because you wish to forget/ignore your obvious disagreements with other Creationists ( i.e. "playing dumb")? Or is it maybe because you actually do think that your ideas are the sum-total of Creationism (i.e. "being dumb")?

The others may be wrong. Of course most if not all evolutionist think their views are far better than their predecessors, and even more so than the view of many non-scientist who hold some view on evolution. Why can't any idea be the same?

 

[gaara4158]

Now what do you think?

I think it's getting boring if it's that easy...

 

[Hespera]

The others may be wrong. Of course most if not all evolutionist think their views are far better than their predecessors, and even more so than the view of many non-scientist who hold some view on evolution. Why can't any idea be the same?

You somehow know what "all evolutionists" think. But we dont know what you think unless you state it in a complete sentence.

Why cant any idea be the same as WHAT?

 

[atomweaver]

The others may be wrong. Of course most if not all evolutionist think their views are far better than their predecessors,

Well, sure, but that is because science is an accumulative process, not a static proposition like Creationism. You make that sound like an egotistical thing, but its not. We just stand at the business-end of a long lineage of really good scientists, (most of whom were better at it than us ).

and even more so than the view of many non-scientist who hold some view on evolution. Why can't any idea be the same?

Well, a theistic idea like those held by creationism are backed only by the degree of faith that the believer has for their views. A scientific idea is supported to the degree that it has evidence that stands in support of it, and a lack of evidence disproving it. There is no way to similarly measure "degree of faithfulness" of theistic ideas. This is why these different ideas are not treated the same; scientific ideas have a measure of value, theistic ideas are un-measurable.