Question for a Creationist

[singpeace]

Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, “…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings—let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.

 

[gnx1987]

the faith must not be mixed with science which contrasts against the righteousness

zah?

 

[jpcedotal]

I am a creationist and I believe in science. I am not a biologist so my knowledge of such is limited to what was taught to me in high school and in Bio 1 & II at college. Pulling from this limited amount (though I do feel I have about the average amount of the folks posting on here from both viewpoints), evolution just seemed to be be added on to biology, not an defining part of it. Even in class when the professor brought evolution into the discussion it seemed more like his opinion than any fact. Everything else we studied was from observation and experimentation, but with evolution, it was as if he pushed it on us and would not allow any discussion to the contrary.

If a biologist feels like he/she needs some sort of anti-god answer for how it all fits instead of simply just observing what is and what is not (God doesn't have to be part of the theory but a conscious effort to rebuke God..ain't science)...fine...but it is not observable or experimental fact to me.

science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Evolution has neither.

 

[miamited]

hi Sethy,

You responded to my post: Since the laws of physics and science are universal, that means we can use what we know now and apply it to past events to help us gain evidence to draw conclusions...


Understand that that is an assumption. Most old earthers believe that the atmosphere of the earth was very different than it is today. It that were the case, then no, we cannot use the 'rules' under which today's atmosphere effects things to extrapolate how things might have happened then. I have yet to find an old earther who can tell me exactly what the 'original' atmosphere was comprised of. If you can't answer that question, then you can't 'gaurantee' that your 'facts' are correct about how things happened in those ages.

But, for me, it is a non-issue. All that is created in this realm of existence was created some 6,000 years ago by a God who had in mind a purpose and that purpose will be fulfilled. By the way, I'm still waiting for your 'scientific' explanation of how Jesus was created in Mary's womb.

You also responded: In science, there are no such things as miracles... EVERYTHING that happens can be explained through proper scientific examination.

Exactly my point. When one comes to faith in God as Creator, Sustainer and Maker of life, then one understands that there are, in fact, such things as miracles and they are not, in fact, explainable by the scientific method. And that, my friend, is the basic disagreement between our two world views.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[HeWhoHasTheSon]

The two contradict eachother. How can you believe in both when there is no scientific evidence of creationism? What I mean by that is we have no evidence of a Noah's Arc, or Moses saving his people, or of the world being created in 7 days. Not only is there no sceintific evidence of these event happening, but there's also no historical evidence of them ever happening. The only historical evidence present is that from the bible.

Cool story bro but read on

Wisdom Teeth

The existence of wisdom teeth may very well take top dishonors as an alleged proof of evolution in the form of a vestigial human body part. It is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people – and by no means all people – is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.
Dr Cuozzo’s Research

Jack Cuozzo, a creationist orthodontist, did a thorough study of the skulls of so-called Neanderthals. His conclusion was that the Neanderthals were from a time when human beings had much longer life spans, developed and grew much slower, and were of superior strength, and possibly intelligence, if their larger brain capacities are an indication of this. Biblically-based theories of the degeneration of the human race are supported by evidence provided through genetic decline. The problems often caused by wisdom teeth are further evidence of this generation. Cuozzo’s discussion explanation for the problems that are common with wisdom teeth in modern times may be a consequence of an increased consumption of growth hormones in foods, and due to the heavy emphasis on cooked foods that require less chewing. Due to less chewing, jaw muscles will develop less size. This is an environmental factor, not an evolutionary one. Evidence of this is found all over the world. People who do more chewing due to raw diets, and who are not fed the huge amounts of growth hormones that western cultures are given, have few problems with lack of space for wisdom teeth.
Dr. Morris’s Research

John D. Morris cites several other possible causes of wisdom tooth problems that have been suggested. These include poor nutrition, improper hygiene, and improper sleeping position in infants. Assuming that our not using these teeth means that they are useless is absurd. It is like saying the brains of evolutionary scientists are useless vestigial organs just because they do not use them. The theories of these creation scientists is strongly supported by the research published by the Price-Pottinger Foundation. The research of Weston Price demonstrated that cultures which consume wholesome diets that include an abundance of raw foods and no processed foods exhibit a sinificant reduction in dental problems. They had no cavities, and few if any problems with crooked teeth or tooth crowding within the mouth. This shows that overcrowding in the mouth, and subsequent problems with wisdom teeth, is connected with the degeneracy of modern man. The modern world has not only strayed from God’s plan for us in regard to our moral behavior, but in regard to everything else that we do. Modern man’s lifestyle, music, art, clothing, and food is all unnatural and synthetic. A price must be paid for such rebellion. Part of that price is poor health, which includes poor dental health. Once again, the stupidity of evolutionists is by no means harmless. Listening to such follies as their teaching that wisdom teeth no longer have a use leads to poorer health and shortened lives.

 

[Dieselman]

I have a great deal of respect for science, but I understand its limitations. Science can tell us the level of radioactivity in an isotope, but it can't explain the creation of the isotope; nor can it discount that notion that the isotope could be created in its present form without any degradation at all. In other words, we can say that an isotope has a half life a a million years, but we are only speculating about when and how it came into existence. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is limited to exactly that. It can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. To say that miracles do not happen because science cannot replicate them is to have a complete ignorance of the nature of of supernatural hppenings and the limitations of science.

Biology can point to commonalities between species and speculate a common progenitor. However, a common Creator, using the same elements and the same blueprint for life would also explain the same commonalities. Science rejects the idea of a Creator because it cannot prove it. However, what is scientific is not necessarily what is true.

In the story of creation, we see God creating the world intact in its mature state, ready to support life. On day three there were grasses and trees bearing fruit. If fruit trees take a decade to produce fruit, how old were they on day three? If the stars were put into the sky on day four, and light shined on the earth from a star a million light years away, how old is that star? You can use science to say that something couldn't have happened a certain way according to natural law, but if there is a God, then He is above the constraints of natural law. If God wanted to create another planet exactly like Earth in the exact state this planet is, with the same population and the same state of knowledge, who is to say He couldn't do it? The problem with people who try to marry science with religion is that they think one disproves the other. They simply operate on different planes.

Evolution is an attempt to explain how the diversity of life came about from simple origins over millions of years. The Bible tells us that about 5,000 years ago every land animal that couldn't fit into an ark was wiped out by a great flood. Subsequent to that event there had to be a method of creating many diverse species, which is how evolution validates itself. However, to take God out of the equation evolutionists MUST deny that the great flood; the world's most widely recorded calamity; never happened. This is what puts science at odds with religion; the insistance that religious teachings cannot be true because they don't conform to scientific principles.

Simply put, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot account for or disprove miracles. Science cannot study things which are not physical and do not conform to natural law. That doesn't meant that creationists reject science. We simply understand its limitations.

 

[AECellini]

Evolution is an attempt to explain how the diversity of life came about from simple origins over millions of years. The Bible tells us that about 5,000 years ago every land animal that couldn't fit into an ark was wiped out by a great flood. Subsequent to that event there had to be a method of creating many diverse species, which is how evolution validates itself. However, to take God out of the equation evolutionists MUST deny that the great flood; the world's most widely recorded calamity; never happened. This is what puts science at odds with religion; the insistance that religious teachings cannot be true because they don't conform to scientific principles.

i'm sorry, but what? the great flood of the bible is a disaster myth. it didn't happen. if it did, the written continuous historical records kept by the egyptians which date back to 3100 bc and the environmental evidence that shows they inhabited that area as far back as 9000 bc, wouldn't exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's say that there is a murder trial. There are no eyewitnesses to the comission of the crime, so the prosecution has to rely on evidence found in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past. To do this, the prosecution has a forensic scientist examine the crime scene.

What does the scientist find? He finds a bloody fingerprint on the door know that leads out of the room. The blood is that of the victim and the fingerprint is that of the defendant. In the parking lot the forensic scientist finds small drops of blood leading to a parking stall, and it is that of the victims. Tire prints leading out of the parking stall match the tires found on the defendant's car. When police search the defendant's house they find bloody clothes with the blood matching the murder victim. They also find a knife with the victim's blood on it and the defendant's fingerprints, and the knife matches the fatal wound found in the victim.

This would seem like a pretty tough case for the defense to win. Not so. You see, the defense is going to use creationist tactics. Evidence? Well, we are just going to interpret it differently. Afterall, forensic science has its limitations. God can do anything, therefore we can ignore all of this evidence. The appearance of all this evidence was simply a miracle, so we can ignore all of it. Instead, we use the creationist interpretation where we stick with our beliefs no matter what the evidence demonstrates because the evidence doesn't matter.

Does this sound like a compelling worldview? Why do creationists think that any sane person would be compelled by their dogmatic beliefs that require closing one's eyes to reality?

 

[toLiJC]

zah?

the righteousness is the overall salvation i.e. the fact that the salvation must be for all humans, not only for some, of course, those ones that are already saved completely no need salvation, but every necessitous is one of the poor

Blessings

 

[Dieselman]

i'm sorry, but what? the great flood of the bible is a disaster myth.

Your opinion. You weren't there.

it didn't happen.

Your opinion. You weren't there. Jesus was there. He spoke of the flood, of Noah by name, of the destruction of man and of the veracity of the Scriptures.

if it did, the written continuous historical records kept by the egyptians which date back to 3100 bc and the environmental evidence that shows they inhabited that area as far back as 9000 bc, wouldn't exist.

The global flood then occurs in the beginning of the first intermediate period and the presence of the petty kingdoms in the first intermediate period is the evidence that mankind is trying to re-establish its former population after the flood. Therefore the First Intermediate Period should not be dated 2152 B.C., but according to the Fourth Day Chronology the beginning of the First Intermediate Period should be 2313 B.C., the year of the global flood, or about 161 years earlier. If the Egyptian Chronology is shifted back 161 years the dating of Menes' reign would be corrected to the year 3081 B.C. which would be between the dates of the birth for Lamech (3095 B.C.) and Noah (2913 B.C.) according to the Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate chronology. This dating for Menes would make his presence consistent with the biblical appearance of the "men of renown".
source.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your opinion. You weren't there.

Would you use this argument in the court case that I spoke of in the post above? Would you, as a defense attorney, tell the jury that they can just ignore all of the forensic evidence because they weren't there?

We have geologic formations that record past events. No recent global flood is recorded in the geologic record. None. If there was a global flood we would have evidence for it, but we don't. This was discovered in the early 1800's by geologists who actually went out expecting to find evidence of Noah's Flood and a young earth. They found just the opposite.

Your opinion. You weren't there. Jesus was there. He spoke of the flood, of Noah by name, of the destruction of man and of the veracity of the Scriptures.

What we have are claims made by men about what Jesus said and what he was.

The global flood then occurs in the beginning of the first intermediate period and the presence of the petty kingdoms in the first intermediate period is the evidence that mankind is trying to re-establish its former population after the flood. Therefore the First Intermediate Period should not be dated 2152 B.C., but according to the Fourth Day Chronology the beginning of the First Intermediate Period should be 2313 B.C., the year of the global flood, or about 161 years earlier. If the Egyptian Chronology is shifted back 161 years the dating of Menes' reign would be corrected to the year 3081 B.C. which would be between the dates of the birth for Lamech (3095 B.C.) and Noah (2913 B.C.) according to the Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate chronology. This dating for Menes would make his presence consistent with the biblical appearance of the "men of renown".

source.

We have annual ice layers, tree rings, and annual lake varves that span this same time period and they are uninterrupted. If there was a global flood we would see it in these records. The evidence quite clearly shows that there was not flood.

 

[Dieselman]

Would you use this argument in the court case that I spoke of in the post above? Would you, as a defense attorney, tell the jury that they can just ignore all of the forensic evidence because they weren't there?

There is no evidence of descent, only commonalitites that could be as easily described by a common Creator as anything else. What we see in the fossil record is species that existed and died out with no provable ancestors or descendants. We see a massive explosion of fossils consitent with enormous flooding and mass burial in setiment. Other than that you have interpretations of atheists who provably manipulate time frames to suit their hypothesis. Show them a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and they will say it demonstrates descent, though we know it does nothing of the sort.

We have geologic formations that record past events.

They do nothing of the kind. They are formations. Geologist speculate how under current conditions they might have formed. That is not to say they DID form that way, or that the global conditions were constant.

No recent global flood is recorded in the geologic record.

Opinion. Others have a far different opinion that the the geologic record PROVES a global flood.

If there was a global flood we would have evidence for it, but we don't.

Again, this is your opinion. I could point to the Grand Canyon as evidence of runoff and the depths of the oceans as evidence of the volume of water that covered the earth. Some geologists have written entire books about flood geology, but of course you aren't interested in information that contradicts what you choose to believe.

What we have are claims made by men about what Jesus said and what he was.

Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God as verified by Jesus Christ Himself. You don;t have to have faith in Him. You can put your faith in the science of man and later defend your disbelief when you stand in front of God on the day of judgment.

We have annual ice layers, tree rings, and annual lake varves that span this same time period and they are uninterrupted.

Science is good a measuring things that are right in front of it, but the further in the past an event occurs the more inaccurate the interpretation of the evidence. There are no tree rings that pre-date the flood. Also, since the Earth was created in its mature condition, I believe that the trees created on day three had rings just as they do today.

If there was a global flood we would see it in these records.

You interpret the evidence one way, Christian geologists see it differently.

The evidence quite clearly shows that there was not flood.

Eyewitness testimony from the Son of God confirms that the flood did, in fact, happen. Your interpretation of the evidence is incorrect.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence of descent, only commonalitites that could be as easily described by a common Creator as anything else.

Would you use that same argument in a court of law? Would you explain how the DNA match between the sample at the crime scene and the DNA of the defendant could just as easily be produced by a common Creator? Would you, as a juror, be convinced by this line of reasoning?

If you would not be convinced, then why do you expect me to be convinced?

What we see in the fossil record is species that existed and died out with no provable ancestors or descendants.

What we see in fossils is a mixture of characteristics that can be used to test the theory of evolution. If humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes then we should find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE FIND. That is the prediction being tested, the mixture of characteristics in fossils.

We see a massive explosion of fossils consitent with enormous flooding and mass burial in setiment.

Where?

Other than that you have interpretations of atheists who provably manipulate time frames to suit their hypothesis. Show them a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and they will say it demonstrates descent, though we know it does nothing of the sort.

Now you are just spouting falsehoods.

They do nothing of the kind. They are formations. Geologist speculate how under current conditions they might have formed. That is not to say they DID form that way, or that the global conditions were constant.

What conditions have changed so that flood deposits no longer look like flood deposits? Please explain.

Opinion. Others have a far different opinion that the the geologic record PROVES a global flood.

That opinion is based on religious dogma, not on the evidence.

Again, this is your opinion. I could point to the Grand Canyon as evidence of runoff and the depths of the oceans as evidence of the volume of water that covered the earth. Some geologists have written entire books about flood geology, but of course you aren't interested in information that contradicts what you choose to believe.

No, you can't. Every creationist has failed in this task. The evidence runs contrary to a global flood. For example, catastrophic runoff does not create gooseneck meanders like those seen at the Grand Canyon:

Goosenecks State Park, near Mexican Hat, Utah

Catastrophic floods do not create ice layers with alternating oxygen isotopes consistent with annual deposits, lake varves with alternating layers of diatoms and clay with organic debris sorted by 14C content, fine siltstones, chalk, 2,000 feet worth of sea lilies, etc. There is simply no way that a flood could produce the geology we see today. None. You have been sold a false bill of goods.

Christians believe . . .

When you are ready to discuss EVIDENCE let me know.

Science is good a measuring things that are right in front of it, but the further in the past an event occurs the more inaccurate the interpretation of the evidence. There are no tree rings that pre-date the flood. Also, since the Earth was created in its mature condition, I believe that the trees created on day three had rings just as they do today.

There are lake varves and ice layers that do predate the supposed flood, and by a lot. Both of these records are uninterrupted by a flood. The flood did not occur.

You interpret the evidence one way, Christian geologists see it differently.

Yes, I interpret it correctly.

Eyewitness testimony from the Son of God confirms that the flood did, in fact, happen. Your interpretation of the evidence is incorrect.

Which of the Gospel writers was the Song of God?

 

[gnx1987]

Let's say that there is a murder trial. There are no eyewitnesses to the comission of the crime, so the prosecution has to rely on evidence found in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past. To do this, the prosecution has a forensic scientist examine the crime scene.

What does the scientist find? He finds a bloody fingerprint on the door know that leads out of the room. The blood is that of the victim and the fingerprint is that of the defendant. In the parking lot the forensic scientist finds small drops of blood leading to a parking stall, and it is that of the victims. Tire prints leading out of the parking stall match the tires found on the defendant's car. When police search the defendant's house they find bloody clothes with the blood matching the murder victim. They also find a knife with the victim's blood on it and the defendant's fingerprints, and the knife matches the fatal wound found in the victim.

This would seem like a pretty tough case for the defense to win. Not so. You see, the defense is going to use creationist tactics. Evidence? Well, we are just going to interpret it differently. Afterall, forensic science has its limitations. God can do anything, therefore we can ignore all of this evidence. The appearance of all this evidence was simply a miracle, so we can ignore all of it. Instead, we use the creationist interpretation where we stick with our beliefs no matter what the evidence demonstrates because the evidence doesn't matter.

Does this sound like a compelling worldview? Why do creationists think that any sane person would be compelled by their dogmatic beliefs that require closing one's eyes to reality?

entirely possible the defendant did it. other possibility. defendant was drugged and unconscious. professional hitman does the job and carefully plants and alters evidence accordingly to make it look like defendant did it.

besides, the problem with evolution is all you've got are dead bodies, but no murder weapon, no blood, no tire tracks, and only one suspect.

 

[USincognito]

Your opinion. You weren't there.

Nice argumentum ad Ken Hamum.

There's only one problem with this. Not only were the beings that were alive at the time there. Not only was the topography that shows no sign of a global flood occuring 4,400 there. The civilizations that existed before, during and after the supposed Flood were there as well.

 

[Dieselman]

Not only were the beings that were alive at the time there. Not only was the topography that shows no sign of a global flood occuring 4,400 there. The civilizations that existed before, during and after the supposed Flood were there as well.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it.

Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.

As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits or river deltas. Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.

In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?

Bones of Whales have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level...

The evidence of a global flood is everywhere if you choose to accept it, and nowhere if you choose to deny it.

 

[Loudmouth]

One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds.

Why is this evidence for a worldwide flood?

Here are polystrate telephone poles produced by a recent volcanic eruption. No global flood needed:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/punong1/fig18f.jpg

If polystrate fossils can be produced without a global flood, then why are they evidence of a global flood? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The evidence of a global flood is everywhere if you choose to accept it, and nowhere if you choose to deny it.

No, it isn't. We have annual lake varves and ice layers with no interruption during this time period. The evidence contradicts a recent global flood. Why are you denying this evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

entirely possible the defendant did it. other possibility. defendant was drugged and unconscious. professional hitman does the job and carefully plants and alters evidence accordingly to make it look like defendant did it.

So should we free everyone that was convicted on the weight of forensic evidence? If I defense attorney used the argument above would you be convinced to find the defendant not guilty if you were on the jury?

besides, the problem with evolution is all you've got are dead bodies, but no murder weapon, no blood, no tire tracks, and only one suspect.

We have the DNA evidence. Tons of it. For example:

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

We share hundreds of thousands of ERV insertions at the same location in our genomes as those found in other apes. This is smoking gun evidence of common ancestry.

 

[miamited]

Hi Sethy,

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you.

You asked a question of me and you deserve my answer:

Some may knock it down because it can't explain certain biblical events. But if you trust science to explain medical issues, biology, atomic particles, physics, and the chemical make up of life, then why knock it down when it conflicts with the bible??

Because, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit who lives within me, the Scriptures are the only thing that I know to be true.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Gracchus]

But if you trust science to explain medical issues, biology, atomic particles, physics, and the chemical make up of life, then why knock it down when it conflicts with the bible??

Because, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit who lives within me, the Scriptures are the only thing that I know to be true.

For whatever reason, real or imagined, you are certain. You know.

I would recommend "ON BEING CERTAIN: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton. To cut to the chase: Knowing for certain means that your certainty is probably irrational. In other words, you're fooling yourself. Humans are experts at doing that. Whatever the subject, a modicum of doubt and skepticism is called for.