Proof of Creation?

[flyingpenguin]

Hello, I am a devout Christian and I have watched about 80% of Kent Hovind's stuff. While I find most of it very interesting (except the stuff about the New World Order...that is a bit whacked), I have heard many people attack him as being wrong.

I have also looked a bit into www.creationscience.com and found that stuff interesting.

Now, my questions is. I have heard from the evolutionists speaking on how factual their stuff is...but I haven't heard from creationists.

I believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, and I believe it when God says that the world was created by Him. However, is there any scientific proof of this?

I pose this to Christians and creationists. Not evolutionists. I have seen your posts where you give your arguements against creation. Now I would like to hear the arguements against evolution by the Creationists.

Thank you.
David

 

[Kevin_Gould]

*Sits down quietly and prepares to take notes*

I'm very intrested on how this turns out... hmmm... and yes I'll be silent. lol

*silence*

 

[SimpleChristian]

Some proof of creation comes from the debunking of evolution.

One of the biggest debunks is that of carbon dating, which is about as accurate as a blind man doing cross stitch. I love it when 'scientist' date something like a hat from 1850 as being a relic 2 million years old.

Fun stuff, that.

 

[DrLao]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
I believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, and I believe it when God says that the world was created by Him. However, is there any scientific proof of this?

I pose this to Christians and creationists. Not evolutionists. I have seen your posts where you give your arguements against creation. Now I would like to hear the arguements against evolution by the Creationists.

So, which is it? Do you want arguments for creation or against evolution? In my experience, whenever you ask creationists for the former, you end up with the latter. I would be interested as well in evidence for creation, but I think I've heard enough about evidence against evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I pose this to Christians and creationists. Not evolutionists. I have seen your posts where you give your arguements against creation.

Did you want us to chime in when some of the evidence (such as that presented by SimpleChristian) is in grave error and point out the problems with it, or did you want only creationist viewpoints period?

 

[seebs]

I would personally love to see active evidence *for* creation, rather than attempts to disprove evolution, because I've never seen a single such piece of evidence. (Outside the assumption that the Bible is literal on these issues.)

 

[RufusAtticus]

I am also curious to know if there is any evidence for creation that doesn't require someone to believe in the Bible.

To put it another way, is there anyone who aruges that there exists evidence for a young earth who isn't Christian/Jewish/Muslim or even religious?

If the world is truely young and special creation explains biology, then there should exist evidence for it outside of interpretation of scripture.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by SimpleChristian
One of the biggest debunks is that of carbon dating, which is about as accurate as a blind man doing cross stitch. I love it when 'scientist' date something like a hat from 1850 as being a relic 2 million years old.

a) Radiocarbon dating is only used to date artifacts from relatively recent history (50Kya or so), so it's not terribly relevant to evolution.

b) You're just factually wrong.  Radiocarbon dating has been shown to be very accurate when compared to other forms of dating like tree rings and ice cores.

 

[flyingpenguin]

Alright, in clarification of my former post, I would like to hear of some examples of proof of creation.

I have heard the arguements, some made by Kent Hovind and others, against evolution, so that isn't what I would like to hear.

I would like to hear about any scientific proof of creation. Is this something I am supposed to accept on faith alone? If it is, that is fine.

However, when my non-Christian, or just skeptical friends want proof of creation, I have not been able to find any.

I have heard a lot of stuff about the flood, and that seems to hold up pretty well (depending on who you talk to), but that doesn't really act as proof of creation.

Creation, according to the Bible is this:

1. God created everything in 6 literal days (I don't want to hear about the Gap theory).
2. The heaven and earth was created mature...man was created full grown, animals were full grown, same with trees, stars, etc.

Is there any scientific proof of these events? Is it possible to have proof of this?

David

 

[Freodin]

Six days creation? Maybe. I can´t think of any, but it could be possible.

 

Mature universe? No, no way for a scientific prove. How would you prove that ALL the evidence was fabricated?

On this level, you could revert to "Last Thursdayism", the belief that the universe was created "mature" last Thursday.

 

[flyingpenguin]

I suppose you are right. Inherently, there isn't much proof that creation exists.

By its very nature, God created the world mature, which is what the evolutionists use for their arguements. I am not saying that God put fossils into the ground or somesuch, but it would possibly account for "ice core aging" and "tree rings".

David

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
I suppose you are right. Inherently, there isn't much proof that creation exists.

By its very nature, God created the world mature, which is what the evolutionists use for their arguements. I am not saying that God put fossils into the ground or somesuch, but it would possibly account for "ice core aging" and "tree rings".

David

 

By its very nature? Why should God do such a thing? Why can´t you believe that God is not fooling around with us, but that if something seems to be millions of years old, it IS millions of years old?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
By its very nature, God created the world mature, which is what the evolutionists use for their arguements. I am not saying that God put fossils into the ground or somesuch,

If they were not arranged by God to follow a simple chronological pattern diverging toward modern forms from past to present, then how would you explain them, apart from as an indicator that life has followed that pattern of change over time?

 

[flyingpenguin]

Two questions need to be answered here.

1. Why would God do such a thing? Why can I not accept that the earth is millions of years old?

The answer to that is simple. I believe the Bible is the unmistakable, literal Word of God. God says specifically that the world was made in 6 literal days.

To doubt this is to doubt the Bible, to say the the Word of God is incorrect, misinformed, wrong. If this is wrong, then what else could be wrong? The whole thing could be wrong...what parts can I believe, and which are incorrect?

These are questions that are not answerable (if that is a word).

So the fact remains. God created a mature world.

2. How would I explain that animals are changing (I think I am misunderstanding the question).

Animals change through MICROevolution all the time. But I have never seen anything that can link the fact of microevolution to the theory of macroevolution.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
Two questions need to be answered here.

The answer to that is simple. I believe the Bible is the unmistakable, literal Word of God. God says specifically that the world was made in 6 literal days.

To doubt this is to doubt the Bible, to say the the Word of God is incorrect, misinformed, wrong.

To doubt this is to doubt a particular interpretation of the Bible. To say the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe 15 billion, and to say that life evolved from a primitive common ancestor - this is not to say the Bible is wrong. It is to say that one particular reading of it is wrong.

If this is wrong, then what else could be wrong? The whole thing could be wrong...what parts can I believe, and which are incorrect?

My family is Baptist, and they believe that the Bible is best read and understood with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They believe that the HS can guide you to correctly understand the scripture, at least as far as the correct understanding is important to your spiritual well-being. 

These are questions that are not answerable (if that is a word).

It is a real word. And the questions are answerable - but the answers can never be completely certain.

So the fact remains. God created a mature world.

I understand that the Bible does not say this, but lets just pretend for a moment that in Ezebikiah 4:23 the Holy Bible said "And, the sky is never blue in hue, nay and it never scatters orange light leaving mostly the blue wavelengths to carry through, amen."

The observations of a blue sky and its cause are very straightforward. In a case like this, would you:

a) Believe that the sky is never blue and that God created it with a "blue appearance" that tricks us into thinking it is blue

b) abandon your faith

c) Shrug your shoulders and say, "well the sky does look blue, and the evidence points to the fact that it is blue becaus orange light is scattered by the atmosphere and blue light is less scattered. The Bible seems to be telling us something else, but perhaps the contradiction would be resolved if I had a better understanding of the true meaning of the Bible's words on this point. I will see if I can wait for the Holy Spirit to guide me to the correct understanding, and if it then still conflicts with the evidence of my senses,I will go back and choose between a) and b)"

2. How would I explain that animals are changing (I think I am misunderstanding the question).

Animals change through MICROevolution all the time. But I have never seen anything that can link the fact of microevolution to the theory of macroevolution.

This can only mean that you haven't looked very far. Considering your religious position, that is very understandable. But why assume that just because you haven't seen the evidence of macroevolution that it doesn't exist. The scientists of the world are not talking out their rear-ends when they say that it most definitely does exist, and in abundance. Why not take their word for it on the evidence (since you have little or no training in the field yourself) and base your conclusions on your faith instead of an artificial attempt to discredit the science?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

a) Radiocarbon dating is only used to date artifacts from relatively recent history (50Kya or so), so it's not terribly relevant to evolution.

Right.

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
b) You're just factually wrong.  Radiocarbon dating has been shown to be very accurate when compared to other forms of dating like tree rings and ice cores.

Wrong. I don't really feel like digging up all the tables right now, but carbon dating has been terribly unreliable. Not that it matters, since it only applies to evolution very indirectly. IMO the closest carbon dating comes to having any affect on evolution is when fossils and coal "millions of years old" have measurable C14 in them.

 

[randman]

OK, here's the deal. As far as the first created acts whether the chicken or the egg came first, it is a matter of faith. Noone has fossils that I know, how could they know, of the first actual kind.
On six 24 hour periods, as someone who has spent years studying the Bible, I do not beleive the Bible actually states that. The same passage refers to all 6 "days" in the singular as well as "the day" God created these things thus indicating to me that "day" here is used as it is elsewhere in the Bible, not always as a single day. Ever hear the phrase "back in the day"?
On creation, I think all of the evidence for the Big Bang is evidence for creation.
I think all of the design features and physical laws and principles ar evidence for creation.
I think Mitochondria Eve is evidence for creation, though not conclusive evidence but certainly consistent with it.
I think the fossil record is perhaps most of all evidence for special creation since species don't appear to gradualy evolve into different sorts of animals as evolutionists proposed.

However, I also think if you are going to examine the Bible as a starting point to look at the world, you have to really work and get rid of some presuppositions tjhat may no be right.

Take the idea of the fall of Adam and resulting curse upon the world. We assume that God changed things from that point forward, but God isn't limited to time the way we are. The creation is best described as something like a movie would be to us. The actors though are real, and they do more than act out a script, but nevertheless, for God, the whole thing is all now. So when He theoritically changed the creation, He may well have done so from the very beginning, and re-shot the movie from there. We don't know for sure obviously, but I think there are hints of it in the Bible, a lot more than hints actually. So if we look at the past as something fixed, basically we are assuming something that we can't prove. Time may appear to be linear, and the creation constant, but we have very lim ited technology. Maybe a few hundred years from now, we will see things much differently.

 

[randman]

David, read Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations [which suggests long periods of time] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [singular] that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth."

I too believe the Bible is the word of God, and assume God put this here on purpose. God seems to be telling us here that "day" is not meant in the 24 hour sense. You have to understand that this is still a literal reading. "Day" is used to denote several things in the Bible from daylight, to a 24 hour period, to an indefinite period of time such as the Sabbath day of the Lord referring in Hebrews to the rest of the Lord as if we are still in the 7th day now. Get a concordance. Some things like "love your neighbor" are very straighforward, but other things of God are not.

 

[Jerry Smith]

randman:

Whose side are you on anyway?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Wrong. I don't really feel like digging up all the tables right now, but carbon dating has been terribly unreliable. Not that it matters, since it only applies to evolution very indirectly. IMO the closest carbon dating comes to having any affect on evolution is when fossils and coal "millions of years old" have measurable C14 in them.

If C14 dating is so unreliable, then how come scientists continue to spend thousands of dollars per sample for radiocarbon dating?  Oh, that's right -- they are all stupid and/or liars.

If you wish to claim that C14 is found in fossils, then please provide a reference to support your claim.

As for C14 in coal, there are several possible explanations for this, including radioactive decay and biological activity.  Neither impacts the fundamental soundness of radiocarbon dating.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

(Note to lurkers: Several times npetreley has been provided with the scientific explanation for the presence of C14 in some coal samples, yet he continues to raise it as an objection to C14 dating.  This dishonesty is a shining example of the general deception that creationists engage in.)