What is the evidence for creationism?

[truthmonger89]

I see many threads in C&E discussing evolution. Creationists seem to spend a lot of time explaining why the theory of evolution doesn't work, but I don't see much information here explaining the evidence for creationism or how it works.

Evidence is sort of like a jigsaw puzzle, if you can find enough pieces that fit together, eventually you can start to see a comprehensive explanation of what you're trying to figure out, even with some pieces missing here and there.

So, I'm asking creationists to stop debunking evolution for a moment and explain to me why the theory of creationism works. Walk me through it step by step in layman's terms, explaining what the evidence is and how it fits together to form a comprehensive explanation of an omnipotent being creating everything.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Here is the evidence that exists to support the YEC hypothesis:

* The book of Genesis, with the caveat that it be interpreted literally - but not too literally. It is literal, but only some parts (according to the YEC), otherwise you get contradictions from the two separate creation stories in Genesis.

 

[yasic]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Keep 'em coming!

 

[JohnR7]

I see many threads in C&E discussing evolution. Creationists seem to spend a lot of time explaining why the theory of evolution doesn't work, but I don't see much information here explaining the evidence for creationism or how it works.

The evidence is genetics. As Francis Collins says DNA is the "Language of God".
It is the "language" God used and uses to create the life we see in the world we live in.

God uses natural laws like we study in Chemistry and Physics.
He uses the basic elements of this world as building blocks.
Science tells us a lot about how God created the world that we live in.

There are at least 20 different genetic theorys that may not be perfected,
but they help us to understand how God creates the world we live in and how things are able to fine tune themselves.
We have theorys like the founder effect, we have a bottleneck theory, we have genetic drift and so on.
Even Darwin's natural selection theory can show us how genetics can shape the world we live in today.

The problem is when they try to claim that is is all based on "benificial mutations".
They have put all their eggs in one basket and it will not work.
All of the different theorys that explan genetics,
Yet evolution stands or falls on the strength of just one of those many theorys.

I wonder why the theory of evolution is so fragle that if you take the benificial mutation theory away from them,
the theory of evolution can not stand on it's own, without it.

 

[OdwinOddball]

The evidence is genetics. As Francis Collins says DNA is the "Language of God".
It is the "language" God used and uses to create the life we see in the world we live in.

God uses natural laws like we study in Chemistry and Physics.
He uses the basic elements of this world as building blocks.
Science tells us a lot about how God created the world that we live in.

There are at least 20 different genetic theorys that may not be perfected,
but they help us to understand how God creates the world we live in and how things are able to fine tune themselves.
We have things like founder effect, we have a bottleneck theory, we have genetic drift and so on.
Even Darwin's natural selection theory can show us how genetics can shape the world we live in today.

All of these various theorys play a small part. The problem is when they take something like a benificial mutation theory and try to claim that everything is based on that. It is just not consistant. They have put all their eggs in one basket and it will not work.

I wonder why the theory of evolution is so fragle that if you take the benificial mutation theory away from them,
the theory of evolution can not stand on it's own, without it.

I see no evidence here. I see you making several assertions, but providing nothing to substantiate them as valid. You draw lots of conclusions, but provide no evidence from which these conclusions can be shown to come.

Its your usual routine, alot of talk, and no substance.

 

[JohnR7]

I see no evidence here.

Of course you see no evidence. But the founder effect theory is evidence for creationism. All of the various genetic theorys are evidence for creationism. Most of the evidence people try to use for the theory of evolution can be used as evidence for Creationism.

Francis Collins, at the White House event, was quick to give the answer and introduce another player into biological research. He referred to the sequence of the human genome as “our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” US President William J. Clinton similarly praised the scientists' work, saying that “today, we are learning the language in which God created life.” At a press conference the following year, Collins carried his reference to God even further: “But we are also profoundly humbled by the privilege of turning the pages that describe the miracle of human life, written in the mysterious language of all the ages, the language of God.”http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1298980

 

[OdwinOddball]

Step 1: Genetics
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Creationism(GAP) is correct

please explain step 2

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Care to list the 20 different theories on genetics, point out how they contradict one another, and show which one of them evolution depends upon Johnny?

 

[moogoob]

God uses natural laws like we study in Chemistry and Physics.
He uses the basic elements of this world as building blocks.
Science tells us a lot about how God created the world that we live in.

We both agree on this point. Where we differ is on the how. I beleive natural laws were created first, before matter, then by design allowed matter to fall into place, creating life, the universe and everything. YECs (and GAPs) beleive that natural laws are there in spite of god's intervention, that matter was made first, so to speak.

Same evidence, two different conclusions.

 

[EvoDan]

...
Same evidence, two different conclusions.

I missed it.... exactly where did John offer ANY evidence?

 

[JohnR7]

Care to list the 20 different theories on genetics, point out how they contradict one another, and show which one of them evolution depends upon Johnny?

I don't have problem with genetics. The only thing I have a problem with is the so called benificial mutations theory.
All of evolution hinges on this one theory. It can not survive without it.

You can call a horse a pig if you want. But that don't make it a pig. You can call genetics evolution if you want. But that don't make genetics evolution.

 

[Beastt]

The evidence is genetics. As Francis Collins says DNA is the "Language of God".
It is the "language" God used and uses to create the life we see in the world we live in.

God uses natural laws like we study in Chemistry and Physics.

And yet, in the entire world of chemistry and physics there has never been any credible evidence of God produced.

He uses the basic elements of this world as building blocks.
Science tells us a lot about how God created the world that we live in.

Science has never produced any evidence of God and therefore tells us nothing about God.

There are at least 20 different genetic theorys that may not be perfected,
but they help us to understand how God creates the world we live in and how things are able to fine tune themselves.

Genetics tells us about genetics, not about God. You're just tossing God in on top because you're so sure he needs to be in there somewhere. But the evidence never points to God or a need for any god.

We have theorys like the founder effect, we have a bottleneck theory, we have genetic drift and so on.
Even Darwin's natural selection theory can show us how genetics can shape the world we live in today.

The problem is when they try to claim that is is all based on "benificial mutations".
They have put all their eggs in one basket and it will not work.

And yet the entire crux of Christianity is to place all of one's "eggs" in a single "basket".

All of the different theorys that explan genetics,
Yet evolution stands or falls on the strength of just one of those many theorys.

I wonder why the theory of evolution is so fragle that if you take the benificial mutation theory away from them,
the theory of evolution can not stand on it's own, without it.

For the same reason that if you take attraction between bodies of mass away, the theory of Gravity cannot continue to stand on its own. You can't expect to remove the fundamental operating mechanism of any theory away and still expect that theory to function without it.

And perhaps it's worth noting where you ended up here; right back taking pot-shots at evolution instead of presenting evidence for creationism. Exactly where the OP suggests you not be. Even if you could reach into your pocket and pull out some conclusive piece of evidence which completely debunked the Theory of Evolution, you'd be not one step closer to presenting creationism as a viable theory. You can't make one theory more viable by discounting another.

 

[JohnR7]

where did John offer ANY evidence?

Genetics is evidence for creationism, because genetics shows us how God creates the world we live in. Most all of science, math, physics, biology, chemistry is evidence for creationism. Because they are all studies that help us to understand HOW God created the world we live in.

 

[JohnR7]

And yet, in the entire world of chemistry and physics there has never been any credible evidence of God produced.

God is the Creator, no one asked for evidence for a Creator. They only asked for evidence of a Creation.
If you do not believe in a Creator, that does not change how He created the world we live in.
Science is still a study to show us how God created the natural world.

 

[moogoob]

Genetics is evidence for creationism, because genetics shows us how God creates the world we live in. Most all of science, math, physics, biology, chemistry is evidence for creationism. Because they are all studies that help us to understand HOW God created the world we live in.

Bolded the part I agree with. Note how we con agree on one part but completely disagree on everything else. I contend that natural laws are not evidence for "biblical" creationism, becasue the laws of nature were created to bring life into being by themselves.

I know that this might (possibly) fit me into the umbrella of "creationist", but I simply have a much more naturalistic outlook.

 

[Beastt]

God is the Creator, no one asked for evidence for a Creator. They only asked for evidence of a Creation.

What evidence of creation do you claim to show? Have you ever seen anything created or have you only witnessed transformations of that which already exists?

If you do not believe in a Creator, that does not change how He created the world we live in.

And your belief that God created the world we live in, or anything else, does not lend any credibility to the idea that he did. And science has never proclaimed any God or other sentience behind the existence of the universe.

Science is still a study to show us how God created the natural world.

No, if that were true, science would first need to show that God exists which science cannot do because science cannot proceed without evidence and there isn't any evidence that God exist.

Science can't proclaim that we receive light from the sun if it has no evidence suggesting that the sun exists anymore than it can proclaim that creation is the work of God without having any evidence that God exists. And there simply isn't any credible evidence to suggest the existence of God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For those who have seen this before, sorry but it is my opinion on evidence.


1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.



And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.[/FONT]


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7546975/

Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface. [/FONT]

 

[Oncedeceived]

11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}

There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse. The second has two possible meanings which could be valid. The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement. The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.

I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 19{P} and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

There are several conflicts in this verse that skeptics have in their understanding of this verse. The first is firmament being meant as a hard dome surface but we see in the following verses that birds fly in the firmament which would be impossible to do in a hard domed surface. The second is that the sun was formed first with the moon and earth thereafter.

My viewpoint is that the age of the earth is not conclusive due to plate tectonics, the oldest known rocks are probably lost to us and those that are in evidence show the earth much older than scientists first believed. 03 February, 1998. Astronomers have been able to date the Sun by applying the theory of stellar structure and evolution to data that describe the interior of the Sun found through the study of solar oscillations. The Sun is dated at 4.5 billion years old, satisfyingly close to the 4.56 billion year age of the Solar System as found from the study of meteorites.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html
Dating the Sun is an indirect process. There are several independent ways of estimating the age and they all give nearly the same answer: about 5 billion years.
The age of the Sun can be estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites. This may seem odd at first, but in fact it is extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. th Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating.
G.J. Wasserburg obtained a meteoritic age of (4.57 +/- 0.01) x 10^9 years and D.B. Guenther (1989, Astrophysical Journal 339, 1156) estimated that hydrogen burning started shortly thereafer (40 million (0.04 +/- .01) x 10^9 years later).
Additional evidence comes from the Earth. The oldest Earth rocks are also about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest fossils, found in Australia, are about 3.5 bilion years old. The presence of fossils in rocks indicates that the Earth was a suitable place for life when the fossils formed. This implies that the Sun was luminous at that time. [Of course we can't say exactly how long before the fossil formed the Sun was like it is today, but it does give us a lower bound.]
What is meant by "luminous?" We mean that the Sun was at or near the stable part of its lifetime called the "main sequence" more than 3.6 billion years ago. Viewing the Sun as a star on the main sequence, is very useful and important for astronomers because they have a model called "The Standard Solar Model" that views the Sun at stages in its life while it is burning hydrogen and converting that to helium. The model can be run forward and backward in time, and the astronomers can check the observable quantities in the model like luminosity, solar radius, composition, solar p-mode frequencies, and so on with our real Sun. They can stop the model at any time during its main sequence. If what we see from our Sun matches the quantities in the model for a specific age, then we have one more piece of information of what we think that the age of the Sun is.
One complication of checking the Solar Model with our real Sun is the quantity of helium: the "helium abundance." That is rather difficult to obtain. According to the Dalsgaard article (see below), the solar spectrum is too complicated to accurately measure the helium abundance, so that one parameter has to be estimated (one infers the helium abundance by matching the observed solar radius and luminosity in the solar models). It turns out this affects the estimated age very little.

 

[Oncedeceived]

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Now life moves to land. This is describing the Cenozoic period. The first mammals appear during this period.

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-3.htm
The Cenozoic is the most current era, taking place from the last mass extinction of all land-based dinosaurs (approximately 65 million years ago) to the present day.
This era saw the rise of many mammals, such as whales, the great hunter cats, as well as Humans. But it also saw the rise of the birds, insects, and many new plants, including flowering plants.
Much of life as we know it today evolved during this era.

So we have in the general overview:
1. The Hadean, the Archeozoic and the Proterozioc eras.
2. The Paleozoic
3. The Mesozoic
4. The Cenozoic
All wrapped up in the Genesis narrative.