What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

I do not know of any Young Earth Creationism model, but
RTB also predicts that the flood of Noah was a local event. There is some evidence for a large flood in modern day Iraq around 2900 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_to_Believe

No surprise there as the Flood would only have left evidence of local flooding.

 

[SeventyOne]

That's not what this is about; it's about God "making stuff" in six days 6000 years ago.

Except the OP says we can't use the creationism account to explain creation to his satisfaction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That won't go over very well; creationists hate Hugh Ross.

Opps, wrong Ross.

 

[Al Touthentop]

In that case maybe Christians shouldn't make a literal interpretation of Genesis a deal-breaker.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

No surprise there as the Flood would only have left evidence of local flooding.

Because it was not global?

 

[GodsGrace101]

The problem is that "God did it" is not an explanation. You do not have to show how "God did it" but you would have to show how you know that he did it. And "Because the Bible says so" is not an answer either.

Excuse me SZ,,,
but if YOU can say Darwin discovered the ORIGIN of the species....
Then Christians can say GOD DID IT.

BTW,,,it does seem to be more logical that some being created us instead of believing we just came about by change.

But I must leave this discussion because it's the same ole' stuff and Darwinism, in the end, will be found to be incorrect.

Micro evolution....good.
Macro evolution....not explained yet.

 

[Speedwell]

Who said it was?
Whatever started the universe made a special place for us. It's becoming more and more apparent that we are a unique species.

And that something created us due to the billions of bits of information in our DNA.....It's becoming apparent that something or some being or whatever, put it there to make us the unique beings we are.

This also has to do with cosmology.
Just a little closer to the sun and we'd burn...
Just a little further away and we'd freeze.

I just said this amazes me...
I surely don't understand it..
but you have your fun trying to.

How do you know I don't understand? Yes, I believe that God is author of our being--but I don't believe he created us and the universe in six days 6000 years ago, and that's what the OP is asking the creationists to make a scientific case for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except the OP says we can't use the creationism account to explain creation to his satisfaction.

No, you cannot use the creationism account without proper hypothesis. Without a hypothesis one does not have any reliable evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are a lot of ways God could have "made stuff," some of them consistent with evolution. That's not what this is about; it's about God "making stuff" in six days 6000 years ago.

Why is the challenge limited to six days? (I'm an old earth creationist.)

 

[GodsGrace101]

In that case maybe Christians shouldn't make a literal interpretation of Genesis a deal-breaker.

I don't believe Genesis is a literal story...
HOWEVER,
Wouldn't you think that THE BIG BANG...
sort of goes along the lines of
GOD SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT?

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....

 

[SeventyOne]

No, you cannot use the creationism account without proper hypothesis. Without a hypothesis one does not have any reliable evidence.

Sorry, but the rules were laid down already in what can and cannot be considered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me SZ,,,
but if YOU can say Darwin discovered the ORIGIN of the species....
Then Christians can say GOD DID IT.

BTW,,,it does seem to be more logical that some being created us instead of believing we just came about by change.

But I must leave this discussion because it's the same ole' stuff and Darwinism, in the end, will be found to be incorrect.

Micro evolution....good.
Macro evolution....not explained yet.

Macroevolution has been explained. You are over a hundred years behind the times. And that is the problem for creationists. There story has no predictive powers. It has no practical applications.

The theory of evolution does have predictive powers, it does have practical applications, it is well explained even if you do not understand it and it does have massive scientific evidence supporting it. Al that creationists have is a book and ad hoc explanations. Those will not convince a person that reasons rationally.

 

[solid_core]

No surprise there as the Flood would only have left evidence of local flooding.

I think that the local Flood would left evidence of the local Flood and the planetary wide cataclysmic event wiping out all life would left evidence of exactly that.

 

[GodsGrace101]

How do you know I don't understand? Yes, I believe that God is author of our being--but I don't believe he created us and the universe in six days 6000 years ago, and that's what the OP is asking the creationists to make a scientific case for.

Oh. Then I didn't understand the O.P. and I apologize....
I also don't believe the earth and all on it was made in 6 days 6,000 years ago.
I also don't think God needs rest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but the rules were laid down already in what can and cannot be considered.

That is merely a clarification.

 

[Hammster]

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.

Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.

*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)

I don’t want to discount the work done by creation ministries. But if that is their sole reason (defeating evolution ideologies), then they have failed.

The gospel should be first and foremost. Proclaiming the good news that Christ died for sinners, and our only hope is in Him should be paramount. Our dealings with the creation/evolution debate should fall under 1 Peter 3:15


but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
— 1 Peter 3:15

We really shouldn’t be trying to win some war, but rather give answers in line with the gospel.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Macroevolution has been explained. You are over a hundred years behind the times. And that is the problem for creationists. There story has no predictive powers. It has no practical applications.

The theory of evolution does have predictive powers, it does have practical applications, it is well explained even if you do not understand it and it does have massive scientific evidence supporting it. Al that creationists have is a book and ad hoc explanations. Those will not convince a person that reasons rationally.

I'm not a creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that the local Flood would left evidence of the local Flood and the planetary wide cataclysmic event wiping out all life would left evidence of exactly that.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t want to discount the work done by creation ministries. But if that is their sole reason (defeating evolution ideologies), then they have failed.

The gospel should be first and foremost. Proclaiming the good news that Christ died for sinners, and our only hope is in Him should be paramount. Our dealings with the creation/evolution debate should fall under 1 Peter 3:15


but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
— 1 Peter 3:15

We really shouldn’t be trying to win some war, but rather give answers in line with the gospel.

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

 

[GodsGrace101]

Macroevolution has been explained. You are over a hundred years behind the times. And that is the problem for creationists. There story has no predictive powers. It has no practical applications.

The theory of evolution does have predictive powers, it does have practical applications, it is well explained even if you do not understand it and it does have massive scientific evidence supporting it. Al that creationists have is a book and ad hoc explanations. Those will not convince a person that reasons rationally.

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.