The problem of disproving creationism...

[versastyle]

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.

 

[Beowulf]

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?

 

[Micaiah]

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.

 

[versastyle]

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?

Oh, undoubtedly God did, evolutionists, however, attempt to figure out how and don't just stop trying at a multi-interpreted history book.

 

[versastyle]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Micaiah]

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.

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.

 

[versastyle]

I rest my case.

 

[Beowulf]

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."

 

[Micaiah]

Thankyou Beowulf. That is a better explanation than the one I proposed.

 

[Beowulf]

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."

 

[Beowulf]

There are certain fossilized marsupials only found in Australia.

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.