What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not a creationist.

You may be mistaken. Didn't you ask about how genetic information gets into the genome?

 

[Speedwell]

So, biblical creationists have to satisfy deluded evolutionists while not using God or the scriptures. Got it.

If they want to put creationism on a scientific footing, that's exactly what they have to do. A book is not scientific evidence of anything. The Bible is not scientific evidence of creationism any more than Darwin's Origin of Species is scientific evidence of evolution. As it stands, creationism is not science. It rests on an entirely different epistemological footing than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and science wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science. If you don't care, and want to believe in creationism just because it says so in the Bible, that's fine. but if you want to call it science then you have to make a scientific case for it.

 

[solid_core]

There is no evidence of worldwide flood. The evidence points away from such an event.

From the Genesis text itself is evident that the text does not speak about the whole planet, but about known dry land.

After the flood it says that it got all dry. Dry planet would not be a good ending.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You may be mistaken. Didn't you ask about how genetic information gets into the genome?

I corrected what I said.
Sorry 'bout that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There's a difference between something being inspired and something being literal. I don't think snakes ever spoke Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or English....

Satan wasn't a 'snake' when he talked to Eve.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Satan wasn't a 'snake' when he talked to Eve.

Oh excuse me....
what spoke to Eve and could I have the verse please.
Thanks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From the Genesis text itself is evident that the text does not speak about the whole planet, but about known dry land.

After the flood it says that it got all dry. Dry planet would not be a good ending.

That's why assumptions have to be made. The bible is scanty on some details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To clarify:

I believe we were created and did not come about by evolution.....

I just don't think the earth is 6,000 years old as some do. I think this is not logical.

Then you are a creationist. You are merely not a YEC.

You may not realize this but creationists, Old Earth or Young Earth, have not been able to come up with any scientific evidence for their beliefs. So far all of the evidence supports evolution and only evolution. The point of the OP was that for creationism to be taken seriously in any of its forms that creationists must find a way to find evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Hammster]

And the theory of evolution in no way opposes the Gospels.

It does when you look at the words of Jesus, and what Paul says about the first and second Adam.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh excuse me....
what spoke to Eve and could I have the verse please.
Thanks.

A very enchanting being that spoke in terms of the scientific method.

The KJV translates Strong's H5172 in the following manner: enchantment (4x), divine (2x), enchanter (1x), indeed (1x), certainly (1x), learn by experience (1x), diligently observe (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. 
   to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen
   1. (Piel)
      1. to practice divination
         
         
      2. to observe the signs or omens
         

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
נָחַשׁ nâchash, naw-khash'; a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate:—× certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) × enchantment, learn by experience, × indeed, diligently observe.
Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon [?]

 

[solid_core]

It does when you look at the words of Jesus, and what Paul says about the first and second Adam.

But these words of Jesus or of Paul are not exactly the Gospel... only some theological explanations of some aspects.

The Gospel is: "The kingdom of God is coming!" and you do not need to believe in instant creation to believe this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God gave his theory of creation already. If a person doesn't accept that, then they're not going to accept that Jesus died for them.

No, he didn't. And that would be blasphemy on your part. What reasonable test could possibly refute Jesus's "theory". If you cannot think of one you have admitted that it is not a theory.

 

[pitabread]

I'm amazed at the amount of information in our DNA.
I'm amazed at how a cell functions.

How is information received if not by an intelligent being?

This has to do with Emergent Properties.

It is a concept that explains how properties arise in formations of components even if the property is absence in the individual components.

In the case of DNA, the "information" perceived therein is due to the arrangement of the nucleotide bases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does when you look at the words of Jesus, and what Paul says about the first and second Adam.

Paul was not in the Gospels. And Jesus very often used literary tools in his preaching.

 

[pitabread]

We don't need to "win" an argument about the creation. We need to win souls for Christ.

Picking a fight over science isn't a good way to do that.

 

[pitabread]

You want a creationist to tell you an explanation that doesn't involve 'God making stuff'? Do you know what creationism is?

In order for creationism to compete with scientific theories like evolution, creationism needs to be able to explain how God made stuff.

In my experience not only do creationists lack that sort of explanation, but most aren't even interested in trying to find out.

 

[Speedwell]

Is it somehow more fantastical than the story that God came down to earth as a man and died for our sins?

That's not science, either. It is something known through faith, not science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In order for creationism to compete with scientific theories like evolution, creationism needs to be able to explain how God made stuff.

In my experience not only do creationists lack that sort of explanation, but most aren't even interested in trying to find out.

It's beyond our ability to find out.

 

[Al Touthentop]

That's not science, either. It is something known through faith.

And how much faith does a person have who believes that but doesn't believe that the same person who died for us is the one John says "Through him nothing was made that was made?"

 

[pitabread]

It's beyond our ability to find out.

Certainly not with that attitude.