Is there any evidence for Creationism?

[tryptophan]

Usually, whenever I see an argument from a Creationist, it usually is a negative argument against evolution. But is there any positive evidence for Creationism, that is not "God did it," ?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Would they resort to spiritual blackmail if there were?

 

[Biarien]

there are many things taken to be evidence. hopefully a creationist will post some of them.

 

[TwinCrier]

The best evidence is the lack of evidence for evolution. You think after a bazillion trillion years we would have a lot more fossils and skeletons.
http://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id15.htmlhttp://www.theyoungearth.com/ayoungearth/id13.html

 

[jiminpa]

The accuracy of the Bible in all other historical matters. I know it's not air-tight evidence, but it is a good starting point.

 

[tryptophan]

But is there any evidence that isn't about refuting evolution? Is there any scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 days, that there was a Garden of Eden, that everything happened the way it did in Genesis? Even if evolution is discounted, that doesn't mean that the default position is Creationism. Scientifically, there has to be something that shows that it happened the way Creationists say it did. If there is no evidence for that position, and evolution is refuted, then doesn't that mean that, scientifically speaking, there is no explanation?

 

[Vance]

I think what the OP means is specific evidence for the YEC model of Creation. Evidence of a young earth, of a global flood, of recent special creation. If this is how it happened, then the earth, and the whole universe, would present evidence in favor of these events. So far, Creationists just seem to try to poke holes in the scientific theory of evolution rather than providing evidence that their proposal fits the evidence better (which it would do, if it were true).

 

[cweb255]

The accuracy of the Bible in all other historical matters. I know it's not air-tight evidence, but it is a good starting point.

But it's not. Cmon, don't fool yourselves, study God's word. Only by studying the Bible and reconciling it with nature, both of which are God-given gifts, then we shall find the True Lord.

 

[cweb255]

Here's a site from Free Republic, notorious in their Christian Right Wing attitudes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391d848d2e37.htm

 

[GodSaves]

A time long ago, people used to believe that the Bible was enough. Not today.

 

[artybloke]

The accuracy of the Bible in all other historical matters.

Such as? 'Cause from where I'm sitting it don't look tremendously accurate in lots of different places.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Usually, whenever I see an argument from a Creationist, it usually is a negative argument against evolution. But is there any positive evidence for Creationism, that is not "God did it," ?

No.

 

[Vance]

No, but there should be. If the earth was young, and if there was a global flood within the last 10,000 years (or even within the last 100,000 years), the Earth and the entire universe would look VERY different than it actually does.

A young earth simply does not work.

As for evolution, if evolution is not the correct explanation for the diversity of species, and instead, God did it all, then things get very strange when you consider what we know for sure. We have a series of fossils over billions of years which show a very clear progression from the simple to the complex. We have a fossil record which shows a species at point A in time, then later a species that is changed, then later a species that is changed even MORE, etc, etc. At some point along the way, the first species is no longer found in the fossil record, then the second is no longer found, etc. So, if this is NOT a series of development via some type of evolutionary development, what was God doing? Creating a series of creatures that SEEM to be in a progression, but really aren't? Letting the earlier creatures die off in favor of the newly created model? What do we do with the fact that the vast majority of all species that ever lived on this planet have gone extinct? This is explained very well by evolution, but I don't see how it fits into a model of special creation of all "kinds".

Lastly, even Creation Scientists recognize that the mechanics described in the theory of evolution DO work to create morphological changes. Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift . . . the works. They just say that it is limited to within certain kinds, and can't create greater changes. The only reason for believing that there is some type of "brake" on the process that would keep it within these bounds is the erroneous claim of "no new information".

So, we have evidence of all these changes, a mechanism that could make all these changes happen, and the time within which for them to happen.

The Creationists only have a handful of "hole-poking" of the ToE, an unworkable flood geology and a complete inability to explain the fossil record.

The ONLY thing that drives them is a desire to read Genesis literally.

 

[1denomination]

So far, Creationists just seem to try to poke holes in the scientific theory of evolution rather than providing evidence that their proposal fits the evidence better (which it would do, if it were true).

Evidence it seems to me is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder. Truly it is a matter of what you choose to belive. Beliving in a young earth as I do, it seems to me that it is evolutionist that are trying to poke holes in the Bible, and the TE's who are try to interperet the Bible to fit what they belive. Which is all for naught, maybe we christians (since this is a christians only form I will assume we are all christians) should stick to more profitable discussions such as the resurection, that is unless you guy's have some radicaly liberal interpretation of that scripture as well. Otherwise God Bless you all and remember He has risen.

 

[Vance]

Evidence it seems to me is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder. Truly it is a matter of what you choose to belive. Beliving in a young earth as I do, it seems to me that it is evolutionist that are trying to poke holes in the Bible, and the TE's who are try to interperet the Bible to fit what they belive. Which is all for naught, maybe we christians (since this is a christians only form I will assume we are all christians) should stick to more profitable discussions such as the resurection, that is unless you guy's have some radicaly liberal interpretation of that scripture as well. Otherwise God Bless you all and remember He has risen.

Yes, but this is the "Origins Theology" forum. This is the forum, among the dozens on this site, specifically set aside for the discussion of these very issues. Are you saying that we should just dump this particular forum as one that is not worthy of discussion?

And, no, evidence is not just in the eye of the beholder.

 

[GodSaves]

The interpretation of the evidence is always biased, not matter who interpretates it. The interesting fact to see that those who hold to the evolutionary belief that says man evolved out of the primordial soup also will argue against numerous other teachings found in the Bible.

Christ said if you cannot believe what Moses said, then how you can believe what Christ says.

 

[cweb255]

The interpretation of the evidence is always biased, not matter who interpretates it. The interesting fact to see that those who hold to the evolutionary belief that says man evolved out of the primordial soup also will argue against numerous other teachings found in the Bible.

Christ said if you cannot believe what Moses said, then how you can believe what Christ says.

And it's funny how you blindly follow them too!

 

[1denomination]

Yes, but this is the "Origins Theology" forum. This is the forum, among the dozens on this site, specifically set aside for the discussion of these very issues. Are you saying that we should just dump this particular forum as one that is not worthy of discussion?.

Vance my friend as you are one who is so accomplished at interpreting what is written between the lines (no flaming intended) I would have expected you to have understood what I was saying. My prior statement was intended more for everyday life rather than these boards, much to the same effect as titus chapter 3:9. Forgive me for not being able to articulate myself.

And, no, evidence is not just in the eye of the beholder.

And yes it is, we homo sapiens (that is assuming we are all homo sapiens. what with evolution and all there could be some highly advanced homo so and so on the CF boards as we speak ) are very inclined to accept only that which fits our belief as evidence. And I'm sure you do this as well. As pilates wife said so well is The Passion Of Christ, "if you will not see the truth then no one can tell you", or maybe the statement the is no one as blind as he that will not see. And as I have said that you in your mind have made that statemant to fit your arguement, your position, your evidence, and I use it for mine. once again we are back to the whole eye of the beholder thing. God bless

 

[jbarcher]

Evidence it seems to me is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder.

As an amateur philosopher...the question of "what is evidence" is an interesting one.

If you mean to bring up the observation of different kinds of epistemologies, some being radically different from others (i.e. empiricism) and basically state "pluralism" (as it is meant to be, not how we see it extrapolated into relativism), then the issue here is what evidence we will accept. If you are extrapolating this into a relativistic-type of framework, perhaps "I accept all conservative writings on textual criticism and totally reject all liberal treatments" combined with a "and we are both justified", then I can assure you, somewhere along the way some very serious contradictions will be uncovered in your system. Whether it be accepting such-and-such an explanation for this thing, while not justifiably refusing an explanation from the same field for another, some very serious contradictions will be there.

Let me just give one instance where we can never run away. It is known as the law of non-contradiction. This necessarily lies at the heart of every system--you cannot prove, in a sense, the law of non-contradiction with an argument, but if you deny it, you assert it, and when you assert it, you agree with it. If you deny it, you shoot yourself in the foot.

Possibly, though, you are just talking about presuppositions. You can argue these, though, to a point--but the sheer possibility of arguing them, again brings in the law of non-contradiction, and we are left to conclude that evidence is logically not in the "eye of the beholder".

 

[1denomination]

Sweetsoulsong, I am not a philospher, I am on the other hand observant. My philosphies come from what I see not through what I have read or been thaught and i think it is more than obvious that you can bring any evidence in here for or against YEC,TE,or OEC. The others will either tear it apart or just right it off, No matter how compelling the "evidence". Granted I realize that not all situations will fit into my "eye of the beholder" position but this is the case with most rules, or philosphies if you will. God Bless