• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The problem of disproving creationism...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
V

versastyle

hopeless guide
Aug 3, 2003
1,358
18
✟1,610.00
Faith
Christian
The phrase "God did it" can literally diffuse any scientific thinking.

For example:

There are certain fossilized marsupials only found in Australia. The only natural habitat for these marsupials is in Australia. Australia is miles away from where Noah's ark landed. There is no way they got there AFTER the flood unless:

A) The marsupials swam there. (irrational)
B) Australia was connected to the Southern portion of Asia AFTER the flood, and in the last 4000 yrs it became disconnected. (no evidence)
C) Noah dropped them off on the way to Ararat. (impossible considering Ararat is just a few thousand feet above the highest mountains of Australia).
D) God did it.

Well there is your answer. God did it. Until a creationist is willing to use a rational explanation OTHER than God did it, they will be impossible to educate on the real possibility in evolution and a millions year Earth.
 
M

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
The absence of a rational argument does not prove something does or doesn't exist, or did or didn't happen. It would be foolish to suggest we should only accept those things that God says in His word that we fully understand.

The Christian approach is to accept by faith the basic assertions Scripture makes about Creation in this case. God was never constrained to creating our universe in such a way that a person with a university degree in the relevant area could fully understand, or even a PHD graduate for that matter. How boring that would be.
 
Upvote 0
V

versastyle

hopeless guide
Aug 3, 2003
1,358
18
✟1,610.00
Faith
Christian
Beowulf said:
The problem of disproving creationism is "God did it"?

"Until a creationist is willing to use a rational explanation OTHER than God did it..."

Well, may I ask who did?
Click to expand...
Oh, undoubtedly God did, evolutionists, however, attempt to figure out how and don't just stop trying at a multi-interpreted history book.
 
Upvote 0
V

versastyle

hopeless guide
Aug 3, 2003
1,358
18
✟1,610.00
Faith
Christian
Micaiah said:
The absence of a rational argument does not prove something does or doesn't exist, or did or didn't happen. It would be foolish to suggest we should only accept those things that God says in His word that we fully understand.
Click to expand...
I have nothing against your opinion. It is your belief. You might be right, it could be foolish to suggest it. However, putting in "God did it" and assuming that is a rational explanation isn't science.

Yes. I agree. Can you imagine the trouble we would be in now if scripture was written so that shepherds could understand the ins and outs of the evolutionary theory.
 
Upvote 0
M

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
I have nothing against your opinion. It is your belief. You might be right, it could be foolish to suggest it. However, putting in "God did it" and assuming that is a rational explanation isn't science.
Click to expand...
Maybe God did translate the marsupials to Australia - star wars like -, but then again there may be other explanations that we do not know about that account for the way the marsupials got to Australia.

Maybe one of Noah's great grandchildren heard uncle Noah tell the story about the ark, and so decided his life's mission would be to build a boat, grab some animals, set sail, and see where he ended up.
 
Upvote 0
B

Beowulf

Active Member
Sep 6, 2004
301
18
Midvale, Utah
✟526.00
Faith
Non-Denom
As far as I can tell there was a post-flood land bridge.
Evolution uses the theory of a land bridge as well.

http://www.swcp.com/creation/essay2b.htm

"Evolution doesn't account for geographical diversity or provide the evolutionary explanation for kangaroos only in Australia. Creation science predicts the observed Diaspora pattern subsequent to the Flood. Marsupial creatures dispersed more rapidly because their young are carried while placental mammals must nurture their young and the dispersion requires more time for placental mammals. Flood geology predicts the Southeast Asia to Australia land bridge (known to geologists) was exposed for a brief time during the Post-Flood ice age. Marsupials were able to use the bridge; mammals had not yet arrived. Subsequent warming eliminated the bridges, isolating certain population types."
 
Upvote 0
B

Beowulf

Active Member
Sep 6, 2004
301
18
Midvale, Utah
✟526.00
Faith
Non-Denom


I suppose I could find references at AG or ICR, the more popular sites, but I think these are fine.

http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences2/12noah.html

"One glance at a world map will show that, with the exception of the narrow break at the Bering Strait, a dry-land path leads from Armenia to all lands of the globe except Australia. In the case of the latter the East Indies even today form a fairly continuous bridge of stepping-stones to that southern continent. As regards the Bering Strait, there is no doubt that a land connection once existed between Asia and North America."
 
Upvote 0
B

Beowulf

Active Member
Sep 6, 2004
301
18
Midvale, Utah
✟526.00
Faith
Non-Denom
versastyle said:
There are certain fossilized marsupials only found in Australia.
Click to expand...
Can't argue there.
But then there are certain circumstances that must meet a certain set of criteria before a fossil can be formed. Just because fossils of certain animals are found someplace does not mean they never existed elsewhere.
Surely it can not be expected that every animal on the planet has produced a fossil record in each and every location they existed either in the past or the present. Looking at the fossil record we can not conclude that the buffalo existed in the numbers we know they did. In addition I don't know if there are fossils to prove buffalo even exist.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Australia just wasted ANOTHER $800 million paying USA for subs we'll probably NEVER see!
Replies
12
Views
453
American Politics
ThatRobGuy
Lake Mungo: Evidence of an early practice of religion and a problem for evolutionary biology(?)
Replies
48
Views
3K
Physical & Life Sciences
sjastro
100 years later: The Scopes trial is still proven wrong
Replies
3
Views
349
Creation & Theistic Evolution
The Barbarian
John Henry Newman First Tried to Disprove Catholicism; Now He’s Being Named a Doctor of the Church
Replies
1
Views
66
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
RileyG
The Falsifiability Criterion
Replies
0
Views
136
Creation & Evolution
BlueGreenEarth
Menu
Log in
Register