Most powerful creationist arguments

[laptoppop]

I thought it might be useful to gather in one thread some of the various arguments used in favor of creationism, and together work on recognizing the most powerful. There are better reasons and worse ones. Some are true, but not powerful, or are disputed with enough possibility that it is better not to use them. Some are popular, but not true. AiG has a list of arguments that it is better not to use.

I'm talking about both theological and scientific arguments. Of course the bottom line "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" is fine for us individually, but is not likely to convince others.

Interestingly, the TE subforum has started on a creationism FAQ or summa. TEs generating a creationist FAQ -- kind of interesting, that. Its got some cool stuff, so I copy it here, giving Wiltor the hat tip. It also has some language, etc. for us to correct and fix, such as the first article. I think the way it is worded now is wrong in the sense that there are obvious figurative passages. Its just when the passages are historical, it is an error to interpret them figuratively.

Article 1: Whether it is appropriate for authors of Scripture to use figurative language:
Objection 1: It would seem that the default interpretation of Scripture is literal, and non-literal interpretations should only be applied when the literal meaning leads to nonsensical understanding.
Objection 2: Further, the tendency to interpret the Scriptures figuratively undermines the authority of Scripture.
Objection 3: Further, figurative interpretations of Scripture are inconsistent with the doctrine that Scripture is infallible.

Article 2: Whether it is sound exegesis to try to learn elements corresponding to modern modes of knowledge from the Bible:
Objection 1: It would seem that God should have known that we would have science and would therefore have incorporated scientific knowledge in the Scriptures.
Objection 2: Further, God's verbal inspiration would preclude inaccurate or imprecise cosmology.
Objection 3: Further, human modes of knowledge should be subservient to Scriptural interpretation because knowledge revealed by God is infinitely more certain than tentative knowledge gained by investigation.

Article 3: Whether the theory of biological evolution is inconsistent with the Genesis creation account:
Objection 1: It would seem that God would not use evolution, as it is a continuing method of creation, whereas Genesis presents creation as being finished.
Objection 2: Further, evolution uses imperfect elements and wasteful processes whereas Genesis presents God's creation as being "Good" before the fall.
Objection 3: Further, evolution, as a natural process, is contrary to the nature and work of God, Who is above nature and whose work cannot be measured by natural means.
Objection 4: Further, evolution works on populations rather than individuals thereby precluding a first man, whereas Scripture discusses a first man, Adam.

 

[laptoppop]

These are just off the top of my head. I ask for help in documentation and wordsmithing. Also, other arguments.
Some scientific arguments in favor of creationism:

• The depth and extent of the geologic strata preclude localized events. The amount of material transferred gives solid testimony to a global flood.
• As Dr. Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution demonstrates, the higher animal populations are orders of magnitude too small and the morphological changes are too great for evolution to work. He explains why evolution would require single-gene mutational paths to work.
• Recent research [need the link] has shown DNA repair mechanisms can kick in, even several generations later. This produces stability in the populations when they go beyond a fixed amount of variation.
• We have abundant examples of negative gross morphological mutations -- i.e., deformities. There is not a single example of a positive major morphological mutation, yet evolution would require billions of them. Time is seen as the magic wand that makes it possible, but we should see at least a handful of examples if it were true.
• Even in the case of things such as single gene mutations conferring drug resistance in bacteria, the mutation is virtually always accompanied by additional negative effects, such as decreased motility.
• The machinery and mechanisms inside each and every cell are amazing. The self assembly and design of things such as the bacteria flagellum demonstrates purpose and design. Given the interdependence of all of the parts, there is no conventional evolutionary path that could have created this.
• The lake logs from the aftermath of Mount St Helens demonstrate the deposition mechanisms for other log collections, such as Joggins. These logs, stretching across multiple strata (polystrate) demonstrate continuous rapid deposition.
• polystrate fossils, intrusions, etc.
• out of order sediment layers (prime case: lewis overthrust. miles thick, huge extent, billions (trillions?) of tons of material, with insufficient damage to strata below for it to have "thrust" into position)
• folded sediment layers with tight folds, but no cracking (must have been done while layers were pliable)
• paraconformities -- where the physical evidence does not even show different layers, but the layers are assumed because of geological presuppositions and interpretational framework
• modern pollen and plant fragments in "precambrian" layers

I realize that some of these may bug my TE brothers and sisters. Many have been discussed in the OT forums. Obviously, I am totally unconvinced by their arguments so far. It is likely that we can find better ones to use with less dispute available. If TEs try to answer these here, I suggest we ignore them. If they take it to OT, then fine.

 

[Nooj]

Actually, these might be better addressed in the CvE forum. More focus on the science there and less clutter in the OT forum.

 

[shernren]

I second nooj. Not a single one is theological, hence they really belong more in the Crevo forum.

 

[laptoppop]

This belongs in this forum because I want to discuss, with my fellow non-evolutionary Christian creationists, the best arguments in favor of creationism, both theological (first post) and scientific (second post). Both are needed to create a defensible, consistent viewpoint.

 

[theIdi0t]

I'm clicking the report button several times just for fun.

 

[laptoppop]

Please keep posts on-topic.

One of the key issues in the TE/Creationism debate is the understanding of Scripture.
Who wrote Scripture? Is it limited to their knowledge/worldview?

One of the prime arguments for Scripture being more than just a collection of myths is that God gave the folks who wrote it down information that they could not possibly have had in any other way. Specifically, God often used knowledge of the future to validate His overall message. False prophets were to be identified when what they said didn't come true.

The ultimate set of prophecies revolves around Jesus. From the earliest -- "bruise your head" in Gen 3 through all the hundreds of other references - the thread of messianic redemption runs through the Old Testament. God's wonderful plan for our salvation. God's demonstration that the Scriptures are more than just the knowledge of the people He used to write them.

 

[busterdog]

Please keep posts on-topic.

One of the key issues in the TE/Creationism debate is the understanding of Scripture.
Who wrote Scripture? Is it limited to their knowledge/worldview?

One of the prime arguments for Scripture being more than just a collection of myths is that God gave the folks who wrote it down information that they could not possibly have had in any other way. Specifically, God often used knowledge of the future to validate His overall message. False prophets were to be identified when what they said didn't come true.

The ultimate set of prophecies revolves around Jesus. From the earliest -- "bruise your head" in Gen 3 through all the hundreds of other references - the thread of messianic redemption runs through the Old Testament. God's wonderful plan for our salvation. God's demonstration that the Scriptures are more than just the knowledge of the people He used to write them.

Its funny that you started out with whether it is appropriate to use figurative language. I think have gotten a little too used to dealing with those endless argument about what is figurative, what isn't and whether Solomon, the wisest man of his time, repeat, the wisest man of his time (or any time, perhaps), thought the earth was flat when he wrote Ecclesiastes.

Not that it proves much in terms of specifics, but the need to start with reverance (for God, not science), but isn't it a bit illogical to worry overly much about whether a God capable of raising the dead is putting out fiction simply because it seems far-fetched?

Should I take a shot a couple of paragraphs on speed of light and atomic time v. dynamic time?

 

[laptoppop]

Note carefully -- I copied the first post stuff from the TE forum. I think the part about figurative language is worded wrong. The key good point is that the plain reading should be preferred over fanciful interpretations. It affects how we view and interpret Scripture big time.

I totally agree with starting with reverance for God.

Yes, please - go for it in terms of the paragraphs!

 

[Assyrian]

One of the key issues in the TE/Creationism debate is the understanding of Scripture.
Who wrote Scripture? Is it limited to their knowledge/worldview?

One of the prime arguments for Scripture being more than just a collection of myths is that God gave the folks who wrote it down information that they could not possibly have had in any other way. Specifically, God often used knowledge of the future to validate His overall message. False prophets were to be identified when what they said didn't come true.

The ultimate set of prophecies revolves around Jesus. From the earliest -- "bruise your head" in Gen 3 through all the hundreds of other references - the thread of messianic redemption runs through the Old Testament. God's wonderful plan for our salvation. God's demonstration that the Scriptures are more than just the knowledge of the people He used to write them.

Yet while scripture repeats again and again that God vindicates his message by prophesying the rise and fall of kingdoms and foretelling the coming of the messiah, it never, to my knowledge, makes the same claim about providing scientific knowledge in advance.

So really, the claim that the bible reveals an understanding of science in advance of other civilisations at the time, is not based on scripture, but on the argument that God was able to and aught to do so. It doesn't really hold water, because it assumes we understand God's reason for doing things the way he did when he has not revealed them.

But in exchange for an unscriptural view of the bible containing scientific 'easter eggs', you give up the plain and simple reading of scripture that really seems at first sight to be expressed in the scientific understanding of the day, where God communicates to people in the terms that they understand, and the Holy Spirit inspires praise to the creator expressed in their understanding, their cosmology, of the universe God created. You have to struggle to reinterpret passages and find other meaning to word than the plain straight forward meaning, to show that the bible teaches things it never claimed it was meant to teach.

 

[laptoppop]

Wrong forum and thread. This thread is about presenting the best creationist arguments, not about creation versus evolution. It assumes a creationist position, including a conservative reading of Scripture.

 

[Assyrian]

I brought it up because it wasn't on the subject of evolution and I was discussing what the inspired scripture teaches about the bible. But fair enough, it is your subforum it is up to you to decide what is appropriate here.

 

[Willtor]

Note carefully -- I copied the first post stuff from the TE forum. I think the part about figurative language is worded wrong. The key good point is that the plain reading should be preferred over fanciful interpretations. It affects how we view and interpret Scripture big time.

I totally agree with starting with reverance for God.

Yes, please - go for it in terms of the paragraphs!

That's a good point. I'll make the necessary additions. However, I do want to keep the point about figurative language in general. Some posters argue that all of Scripture can be taken literally. Most don't stay around for more than a few posts, but some of us write well-thought-out responses and it would be nice simply to cite the particular article. Thus, with the current wording, where the initial objection was quick and easy a response to the article will take some thought and that's where I'd like to spend my energy - with somebody who will think about these things, not just post and run.

But it's a good point. We'll definitely make that addition.

 

[laptoppop]

That's a good point. I'll make the necessary additions. However, I do want to keep the point about figurative language in general. Some posters argue that all of Scripture can be taken literally. Most don't stay around for more than a few posts, but some of us write well-thought-out responses and it would be nice simply to cite the particular article. Thus, with the current wording, where the initial objection was quick and easy a response to the article will take some thought and that's where I'd like to spend my energy - with somebody who will think about these things, not just post and run.

But it's a good point. We'll definitely make that addition.

Posts like this are one big reason I'm still here. Thanks

 

[Gottservant]

Just a point on interpretation: I do not believe you can divide between literal and figurative language, nor ignore the substantiative nature of the Word of God. Revelation 19:10 says "Worship God, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. ". What this means is that what we experience of Jesus literally becomes a figure of what will actually come true for us.

I believe the same applies to Genesis. What is stated literally becomes a figure of the relationship (Abraham was called a friend of God) that we will have with God in future. If you deny Genesis, you deny that you can have a relationship with God that is that direct (meaning assuming His days instead of your thousands of years, etc.).

Given that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of all prophesy which is true, it is further the case that no theory that does not exalt Him can be exact enough, nor without contradictions, nor reliable enough to predict all that the future holds. That is why theories such as evolution will fail. His person and what happened to Him is the cornerstone of all that we are able to believe and do.

It follows then, that the refutation of all theories except Creationism exists in the detail of the testimony of Jesus Christ, which you will remember, extends to this day, through faith such as ours. For example, we find in Jesus sacrifice on the cross a denial of any urge that evolution could "design" by accident to facilitate the propagation of the species. Our subsequent faith in Him shows that the shedding of His sacrificial blood was not without merit in this sense, as we now also deny any such urge.

What this opens up, in the case of evolution especially, is the possibility of defining the future of Creation, much to the dismay of those who object, through our lives in Jesus Christ. For example, I may predict with near one hundred percent certainty that my children will not be given to perversions that develop through the urge to waste seed, given that I have overcome such urges through Christ's blood. You will certainly be able to think of more examples than this.

In this way my literal interpretation of the figurative language of the bible, coupled with the substantiative work of the Word of God in my life - through the blood of Jesus Christ - becomes much more than a theoretical exegesis, it becomes a living work. It is for this reason that John is told "Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they shall rest from their labors, and their works follow them. " Revelation 14:13. My work in Christ will come to life!

I praise God and worship Him that I have been found worthy of such a calling as Christ's. This thread has been interesting, especially regarding the factual assertions of the veracity of the biblical account of Creation. I just thought I would offer some thoughts about whether interpretations can really be married, may the thread continue in force!