Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).

I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.

Lion Hearted Man · Feb 21, 2011

With the stipulations you've given, you will find no arguments for YEC. It always comes back to either the Bible or some perceived failing of evolutionary theory to explain something. Usually their ignorance of evolution underlies their proposed "failures" of the theory (it's never been observed...how did life start...micro not macro...etc)

Phred · Feb 21, 2011

HAPMinistries · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).

I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.

Protestant Christianity is based on Faith in Jesus Christ.
This faith, is faith in the testimony of the word of God. This you consider blasphemy, which is quite disturbing.

So YEC is a faith based belief, not a product of the scientific method, especially since YEC existed well before the scientific method.

That said, the mindset in which you are trying to achieve an answer is called Methodological Naturalism. MN absolutely rejects anything supernatural, so a testimony of a supernatural event is easily dismissed and rejected by you, but that does not mean it does not have credence, it is still the acceptance of a testimony. This is still used today, since it only requires the testimony of one person to convict someone of murder, for example.

Now, if you want someone who presents 'something' that you would prefer to see in your world-view, try:

Creation Science Evangelism
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Still, it is certainly a dead end to try to prove or disprove YEC by MNaturalism means, since I see it as a faith based belief.

Lion Hearted Man · Feb 21, 2011

HAPMinistries said:
Protestant Christianity is based on Faith in Jesus Christ.
This faith, is faith in the testimony of the word of God. This you consider blasphemy, which is quite disturbing.

So YEC is a faith based belief, not a product of the scientific method, especially since YEC existed well before the scientific method.

That said, the mindset in which you are trying to achieve an answer is called Methodological Naturalism. MN absolutely rejects anything supernatural, so a testimony of a supernatural event is easily dismissed and rejected by you, but that does not mean it does not have credence, it is still the acceptance of a testimony. This is still used today, since it only requires the testimony of one person to convict someone of murder, for example.

Now, if you want someone who presents 'something' that you would prefer to see in your world-view, try:

Creation Science Evangelism
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Still, it is certainly a dead end to try to prove or disprove YEC by MNaturalism means, since I see it as a faith based belief.

So in short, YEC is meaningless. It cannot be verified, makes no accurate predictions about the world, and doesn't add to our collective knowledge about the universe. It is an antiquated idea that serious theologians and Christian thinkers dismiss.

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

HAPMinistries said:
Protestant Christianity is based on Faith in Jesus Christ.
This faith, is faith in the testimony of the word of God. This you consider blasphemy, which is quite disturbing.

So YEC is a faith based belief, not a product of the scientific method, especially since YEC existed well before the scientific method.

That said, the mindset in which you are trying to achieve an answer is called Methodological Naturalism. MN absolutely rejects anything supernatural, so a testimony of a supernatural event is easily dismissed and rejected by you, but that does not mean it does not have credence, it is still the acceptance of a testimony. This is still used today, since it only requires the testimony of one person to convict someone of murder, for example.

Now, if you want someone who presents 'something' that you would prefer to see in your world-view, try:

Still, it is certainly a dead end to try to prove or disprove YEC by MNaturalism means, since I see it as a faith based belief.

I just checked out the creation science evangelism link, and their front page article for 'proving' that the earth is young is that the oldest pine cone and the Great Barrier Reef are under 5000 years old, and their the oldest organisms alive (that we know of).
And then they continue to say that evolutionists believe we should be finding all kinds of currently living organisms that millions and billions of years old. Yep, the fact that there are no supernatural trees that survive all environmental and predatorial and parasitic pressures for billions of years without encountering DNA problems like aging unequivocally PROVES that the universe itself is no older than the coral reef in Australia.

Seriously, you have to suspend disbelief more on these websites than for Star Wars.

HAPMinistries · Feb 21, 2011

Lion Hearted Man said:
So in short, YEC is meaningless. It cannot be verified, makes no accurate predictions about the world, and doesn't add to our collective knowledge about the universe. It is an antiquated idea that serious theologians and Christian thinkers dismiss.

YEC is as meaningless as salvation, as far as having faith in what we interpret the word/testimony of God to be. If faith in YEC is meaningless, I assume you consider faith in Jesus Christ as meaningless.

Doctrinal interpretations aside, it is the power of faith in a testimony that I am connecting to your description of 'meaningless'.

As far as faith being an 'antiquated idea', then the American judicial system would be considered the same.

It is not YEC that is on trial in your statement, but the method by which one believes YEC, a method that well predates the Scientific Method, and is still used today.

Nostromo · Feb 21, 2011

HAPMinistries said:
That said, the mindset in which you are trying to achieve an answer is called Methodological Naturalism. MN absolutely rejects anything supernatural, so a testimony of a supernatural event is easily dismissed and rejected by you, but that does not mean it does not have credence, it is still the acceptance of a testimony. This is still used today, since it only requires the testimony of one person to convict someone of murder, for example.

And today testimony is very often rejected on the grounds that it doesn't mesh with reality.

Is there anything to this argument but special pleading?

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

HAPMinistries said:
YEC is as meaningless as salvation, as far as having faith in what we interpret the word/testimony of God to be. If faith in YEC is meaningless, I assume you consider faith in Jesus Christ as meaningless.

Doctrinal interpretations aside, it is the power of faith in a testimony that I am connecting to your description of 'meaningless'.

As far as faith being an 'antiquated idea', then the American judicial system would be considered the same.

It is not YEC that is on trial in your statement, but the method by which one believes YEC, a method that well predates the Scientific Method, and is still used today.

All right looks like you're taking the non-sequitur points and the My Interpretation of the Bible Is Absolutely Correct route.
Question: Where in the Bible does it say the universe is 6,000 years old, and where does it, other than the first page, say ANYTHING about evolution/creationism? You have to understand the time period the Bible was written, if during the primitive era of the Old Testament they claimed anything other than a God ordering the universe into creation they would've been ridiculed/murdered and Judaism and Christianity would NEVER have caught on. Of course the Bible will say nothing about evolution, do you really think farmer-nomads would've given the time of day to a religion that said life came to be what it is through DNA mutations, natural selection, and other heavy biological concepts? OF COURSE the Bible will say a deity created everything in 6 days; that's what people wanted to hear.

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

I just checked out the other website you linked; LOL. There's a poll on there about what is the ultimate proof of God
Choice 1: Evidence from creation
Choice 2: The authority of Scripture (the astute observer will see these are basically the same choices)
Choice 3: We can't prove God (I'm an atheist)
That is literally what the choice says. If you don't subscribe to their fringe fundamentalist approach to science and believe that something as ethereal as a God can't be directly proven through human means (and shouldn't be) then your an atheist, with all the negative connotations of that word.

And I bet these same people will attack fundamentalist Muslims for being anti-Christian lol.

juvenissun · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
I don't mean the typical YEC approach of "The Bible said it, the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible is right" (even though the use of the Bible as a defense of something as dishonest as YEC is near blasphemy). Nor do I mean taking something about the ToE that we don't fully understand yet and God of the Gaps-ing it. And not something that just shows you have a misconception of evolution (i.e. giving examples of crabs or whatever that haven't evolved for millions of years).

I'm curious and would like to hear evidence for YEc.

May be you can give me an example on what does a "solid evidence" look like. After I understand what do you mean by it, I might consider to give you an evidence to match that? Fair enough?

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

juvenissun said:
May be you can give me an example on what does a "solid evidence" look like. After I understand what do you mean by it, I might consider to give you an evidence to match that? Fair enough?

Bacteria living in water near a nylon factory developed a gene to digest nylon molecules, nylon is a compound that literally didn't exist in nature before being synthesized by humans.

(note that I didn't use appeals to emotion, non-sequitur analogies, misrepresentations of other people's ideas, etc)

juvenissun · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
All right looks like you're taking the non-sequitur points and the My Interpretation of the Bible Is Absolutely Correct route.
Question: Where in the Bible does it say the universe is 6,000 years old, and where does it, other than the first page, say ANYTHING about evolution/creationism? You have to understand the time period the Bible was written, if during the primitive era of the Old Testament they claimed anything other than a God ordering the universe into creation they would've been ridiculed/murdered and Judaism and Christianity would NEVER have caught on. Of course the Bible will say nothing about evolution, do you really think farmer-nomads would've given the time of day to a religion that said life came to be what it is through DNA mutations, natural selection, and other heavy biological concepts? OF COURSE the Bible will say a deity created everything in 6 days; that's what people wanted to hear.

So, according to you, what should be created first?

juvenissun · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
Bacteria living in water near a nylon factory developed a gene to digest nylon molecules, nylon is a compound that literally didn't exist in nature before being synthesized by humans.

I am sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Could you slow down a little bit?

What is the solid evidence of what?

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

juvenissun said:
I am sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Could you slow down a little bit?

What is the solid evidence of what?

I was giving solid evidence for evolution as an example for you to give me solid evidence for YEC.

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

juvenissun said:
So, according to you, what should be created first?

I don't know what you are asking here.

juvenissun · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
I was giving solid evidence for evolution as an example for you to give me solid evidence for YEC.

How can you tell the nylon-eating bacteria was not already there? So when nylon appeared, they just started to eat it?

juvenissun · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
I don't know what you are asking here.

If you are to create this universe, what is the first thing you like to create?

dustcake · Feb 21, 2011

juvenissun said:
If you are to create this universe, what is the first thing you like to create?

Megan Fox.

juvenissun · Feb 21, 2011

dustcake said:
Megan Fox.

So, why didnt those primitive Bible-written people make a similar suggestion?

Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

Newbie

Eternal Newbie

Junior Mint

Well-Known Member

Eternal Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Newbie

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency