What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[SeventyOne]

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.

Well, the scriptures tell you how He made it, but that truth is already rejected. How are creationists supposed to even address your demand with any seriousness? Might as well demand an economist to explain monetary cycles, but tell them they can't reference currency or supply & demand.

 

[solid_core]

It's beyond our ability to find out.

Actually, our ability to find out is the evidence for a rational Creator and us being His image.

Our reason, rationality and logical thinking is the most suitable tool for describing the Universe.

The origin of our bodies is not a theological mystery like Trinity or similar.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Certainly not with that attitude.

Is this an invitation to study evolution?

 

[JohnAshton]

When the YEC adherents can convincingly argue against God's geographical scripture of trees and rocks, the bones of the Earth, then they will be taken seriously.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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.

You mean scientific evidence.
I would have to agree with that and it may happen.
Or not...I don't know how anyone could prove scientifically a being outside of time ... if that being is not PART OF THE CREATION, then how does one prove its existance.

I think it's also interesting how science cannot go just before the BB. This is probably because there was nothing before then. But do we even understand what nothing is? I surely don't.

So, I guess, yes, I'm a creationist.
I believe the earth is billions of years old.
But I don't believe in macro evolution.

Species seem to have come into existance at one point in time and there's no explanation for this.
(the cambrian explosion). Even Darwin acknowledged that this was problematic but he hoped future science would be able to explain this...till now it has not.

But it does seem, if I remember, that the FIRST HUMAN was found to be a woman in Africa...not sure.

So the question becomes...where did this woman come from?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When the YEC adherents can convincingly argue against God's geographical scripture of trees and rocks, the bones of the Earth, then they will be taken seriously.

True. Scripture and physical evidence must agree.

 

[Hammster]

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.

To have a right understanding of sin you do.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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 [?]

What!

See Genesis 3:1 and 3:4

Strong's Concordance
nachash: a serpent
Original Word: נָחָשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: nachash
Phonetic Spelling: (naw-khawsh')
Definition: a serpent
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
a serpent
NASB Translation
serpent (24), serpent's (2), serpents (2), snake (1).

And maybe you could upgrade from the KJV?
Which also uses the word SERPENT BTW.

 

[Hammster]

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

He affirmed that Adam and Noah were real.

And Paul preached the Good News.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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.

Sure. I'm no scientist and you know much more than I ever will....but HOW were these nucleotides arranged? By chance?

I can't accept that. It's just too complicated.
It's a language, like a computer language.
Computer language was invented by someone....
I do believe DNA language also had to be invented by someone/thing.

 

[Speedwell]

He affirmed that Adam and Noah were real.

They may have been. But that doesn't tell us anything about the literary genre of the various Genesis texts.

 

[Speedwell]

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?"

I believe that, too, but it's still something known through faith, not through science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To have a right understanding of sin you do.

A search of the term "foundations" indicates that creation involved a process and was not instantaneous.

 

[Hammster]

They may have been. But that doesn't tell us anything about the literary genre of the various Genesis texts.

Doesn’t need to.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What!

See Genesis 3:1 and 3:4

Strong's Concordance
nachash: a serpent
Original Word: נָחָשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: nachash
Phonetic Spelling: (naw-khawsh')
Definition: a serpent
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
a serpent
NASB Translation
serpent (24), serpent's (2), serpents (2), snake (1).

And maybe you could upgrade from the KJV?
Which also uses the word SERPENT BTW.

My reference is to the root word for serpent, which is what the attributes of the 'serpent' point to in the narrative. The literal 'snake' in Genesis 1 has the same meaning as "snake in the grass" today. It's a metaphor.

 

[pitabread]

Sure. I'm no scientist and you know much more than I ever will....but HOW were these nucleotides arranged? By chance?

In the context of evolution, not strict chance (natural selection is a process which isn't pure chance).

I can't accept that. It's just too complicated.
It's a language, like a computer language.
Computer language was invented by someone....
I do believe DNA language also had to be invented by someone/thing.

DNA isn't really like a computer language. It's actually chemistry, more akin to a recipe than a program.

As for it being "too complicated", there are other fascinating reads like complexity theory than go into the emergence and behaviors of complex systems.

Things like evolution actually fascinate me in that regard, because it's an elegant demonstration of (relatively speaking) simple recursive systems can generate fascinating complexity.

 

[Speedwell]

Doesn’t need to.

Then Jesus' use of those texts is not the reason you require a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[solid_core]

To have a right understanding of sin you do.

Can you demonstrate what you mean?

Why the faith in instant creation is needed to understand sin?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I believe that, too, but it's still something known through faith, not through science.

I agree with you on that. Science is useful and awesome. But it doesn't explain creation and its current theories on the subject are full of glaring holes. But engaging in that argument is really fruitless in my opinion. It's basically a religious argument. You have to have as much or more faith to believe the theory of evolution as you do to accept that God created the universe.

 

[pitabread]

But it does seem, if I remember, that the FIRST HUMAN was found to be a woman in Africa...not sure.

You're thinking of Mitochondrial Eve. Contrary to the naming, she wasn't the first human woman. Rather this is the name given to the most recent common female ancestor in the human population.

She was neither the first human woman nor would she have been the only human woman at the time. You can read more here: Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia