Scientific Evidence for Creationism

[Pseudonym]

The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb has some great info on the flood

Again I thank you for your reply, but again I must redirect you to my OP. While it is not that I am not interested in books, I have quite a reading load as it is and cannot really afford to purchase a load of books. That is why I am asking for journals, newspapers, and reputable websites. I also asked that the evidence not be outdated, and as I_Love_Cheese pointed out, creationists themselves admit that this text is too outdated to be taken seriously anymore.

We're getting closer though. I smell a legitimate response coming soon.

 

[PETE_]

Since life has never come from nothing with witnesses no theory on the origin of life can have absolute proof. Any way you slice it, it's a cicumstancial evidence case. Historical record and eye witness testimony are proof beyond reasonable doubt for me.

 

[SinfulMessiah]

Since life has never come from nothing with witnesses no theory on the origin of life can have absolute proof. Any way you slice it, it's a cicumstancial evidence case. Historical record and eye witness testimony are proof beyond reasonable doubt for me.

Eye witness testimony from whom exactly?

The evidence for evolution is massive. Even if you have doubt in it and you reject it on this reasoning then how can you then turn and say that Bible provides you more evidence just because it is a book? There really is no evidence that anything in it is true. I am not trying to sound crass but if you reject evolution using that reasoning then how can you accept the Bible as literal truth and history?

 

[azmurath]

That is exactly true, DNA can not do "jack". If the Bible were not true, then the DNA evidence would very easily falsify it. But the genealogys in the Bible are accurate and true and the DNA evidence verifys that.

The mormons are having a difficult time right now, because they are required to find Native Americans that are of Hebrew decent in the last 6,000 years. There maybe some evidence for that, but not much.

Umm... you cannot use DNA evidence unless you have a piece of DNA from someone, not a geneology line.

 

[azmurath]

The Bible is a book of history. If the record is valid for everything else why woul just one area be wrong?

If it is right in just one area why would the rest of it be right? There are some things in the Bible that do not make sense, the crucifixtion for one. Peopel were not allowed near the people being crucified like it says in the Bible and crucificions took place on posts, not crosses. Plus we have verified a global flood cannot happen, nor it could have happened then without God literally protecting every square inch of land on the planets surface. Basically the Bible is a good storybook, but that is all it is, a story. I am not saying it is wrong to use a storybook as your book of worship, stories have very good morals and lessons in them, but they are not meant to be taken as true.

 

[azmurath]

Since life has never come from nothing with witnesses no theory on the origin of life can have absolute proof. Any way you slice it, it's a cicumstancial evidence case. Historical record and eye witness testimony are proof beyond reasonable doubt for me.

Eye witness testimony written by someone who wrote it 200 years AFTER the fact??

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Since life has never come from nothing with witnesses no theory on the origin of life can have absolute proof. Any way you slice it, it's a cicumstancial evidence case. Historical record and eye witness testimony are proof beyond reasonable doubt for me.

To bad you don't have either.

And by the way: Proof is for alchohol and math not science.

Though Absolut is better in the cold drink of reality.

 

[OdwinOddball]

There is arachaelogical evidence for many of the locations named in the Bible, that is true. But thats about the extent of it. There is no evidence for the existence of Adam & Eve, Moses, or Noah, and absolutely zero evidence that the Noahic Flood ever happened.

In fact Noah's flood was disproven almost 200 years ago by Christian Geologists hunting for evidence of the flood. They didnt find any, but found lots of evidence that such an event never happened.


There are historical references to Jesus of Nazereth, but beyond the Bible there is no reference to any of the miracles attributed to him, or any of the divine events described in the Bible for that matter.

So we know the Bible mentions actual historical places. Thats not surprising at all, it was wrtitten by people living in those places. As I've said before that line of argumentation is futile. Using the same logic, you would then have to conclude that any work of fiction that mentions real places must then be true. Someone mentioned the arachaelogical evidence for Troy, so that must mean Homer's Odessey actually happened then?

So, since Spiderman takes place in New York City, using your argument, can you show me where I can find him in that metropolis?

As to the OP, we still have seen no evidence for any flavor of Creationism being true, anyone actually got any? Or do you just have more of the same tired old PRATTS?

 

[SinfulMessiah]

Along the lines of eye witness accounts. The gospels tell similar stories but are not consistent. Four men who saw something and wrote it down and still were a little off. Now magnify that times many generations and just imagine how easily a story or a 'historical account' can get distorted.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

The Bible is a book of history. If the record is valid for everything else why woul just one area be wrong?

Yes it is a book of history, it was written a long time ago.
I suspect you are just at the beginning of a journey where you will find that there is more than one way of conveying information and the book you refer to is a good example of several of them.


edit: many to several

 

[corvus_corax]

Since life has never come from nothing with witnesses no theory on the origin of life can have absolute proof.

(emphasis mine)
Quick note here, before this strawman argument goes any further.

The theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life. The theory of evolution is simply the current best model explaining the diversity of species. Again, NOT the origin of life itself.

And once you get an understanding of what a scientific theory is, you will see how the phrase "absolute proof" is nonsensical

 

[cze_026]

(emphasis mine)
Quick note here, before this strawman argument goes any further.

The theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life. The theory of evolution is simply the current best model explaining the diversity of species. Again, NOT the origin of life itself.

And once you get an understanding of what a scientific theory is, you will see how the phrase "absolute proof" is nonsensical

Thank you! I could not have said it better myself!

Cze

 

[Belk]

There are a lot of geneologys in the Bible. The Bible also calls them generations. For example

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Just like Archeology shows that the citys in the Bible were real cities. The work on DNA shows that the genealogys in the Bible are accurate and true. Just run a search on genealogy & dna. Lots of results will come up.

I did a google search on genealogy & dna, but the returns where information on how to use DNA to find your family tree. Where they any sites in particular that you found useful that you can direct me too?

 

[RealityCheck]

Four pages, and no response that actually matches what the opening poster asked for.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Four pages, and no response that actually matches what the opening poster asked for.

Can't say that I am suprised. I saw this thread and thought it might be interesting, but I was wrong. Same old stuff. "The bible is right, because the bible says it is right".

LLH

 

[Pseudonym]

Four pages, and no response that actually matches what the opening poster asked for.

Can't say that I am suprised. I saw this thread and thought it might be interesting, but I was wrong. Same old stuff.

I too have been disappointed. Despite all the creationists on this board supporting their beliefs with scientific evidence I have not been given one relevant link, journal, or newspaper article. The purpose of this thread is not even to debunk the evidence that they do provide. I just wanted to read the science behind their arguments.

Of course I'm still interested in what I asked for in my OP, so hopefully someone will post something worthwhile eventually.

 

[RealityCheck]

Almost always, the argument runs as:

A) Some piece of evidence doesn't fit the theory of evolution.
B) Therefore Evolution must be entirely wrong.
C) The only alternative to Evolution is Creationism.
D) Therefore, Creationism is right.

Or the fall-back is "dating methods are wildly inaccurate and have been manipulated to support evolution."

 

[JohnR7]

There is no evidence for the existence of Adam & Eve, Moses, or Noah, and absolutely zero evidence that the Noahic Flood ever happened.

So what is the difference between "no evidence" and "absolutely zero evidence" Interesting how there could be so many ancient records for floods and yet you say there is no evidence for a flood. Do you deny that there was a flood recently in New Orleans?

Even science tells us that the ice at the end of the ice age melted at three different times and the water flooded the earth faster then what they believed at first. Yet you say there was no flood. Even though the evidence for a flood is overwelming.

 

[Pseudonym]

Yet do you care to share sources for creationism?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Even science tells us that the ice at the end of the ice age melted at three different times and the water flooded the earth faster then what they believed at first. Yet you say there was no flood. Even though the evidence for a flood is overwelming.

Well when we speak of evidence for a flood, we generally mean a GLOBAL flood (such as the bible describes) not some regional flood. The Nile flooded all the time so there is lots of evidence for "a flood" just no evidence for a "global flood".

Furthermore, I'm sure you are aware of this and are just feigning ignorance.

Finally, the OP asked for sources; do you have any?

LLH