• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Where is your evidence creationists?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by revo74, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. cupid dave

    cupid dave Guest

    +0
    Evidence...?

    There was a Big Bang beginning Gen 1:1/

    And, Pangea was discovered in 1920 as a proof of Gen 1:9, that once only one large continent existed, surrounded by a giant ocean where "all the waters under heaven were collected into one place.




    [​IMG]
     
  2. Phred

    Phred Junior Mint

    +538
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Now see, here's where you make these GINORMOUS leaps of faith without any evidence to back them up whatsoever.

    Yes, at one time there was a supercontinent. And yes, at one time there was a Big Bang. How in the world do you manage to assume that the Big Bang is referred to in Gen 1.1? And how in the world do you manage to assume that Gen 1.9 is referring to Pangea? Especially when the continents had been moving around for millions of years prior to Pangea forming. And there were still pieces of continents that were NOT part of Pangea, Western N. America was separated by a vast sea. But even IF Pangea was all the land on the face of the earth, it was only around 500 million years ago. What happened during the other FOUR BILLION YEARS after the formation of the planet?

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God formed the universe, waited eight billion years, then formed the sun and the earth, waited four more billion years, then ""all the waters under heaven" were collected into one place and then a hundred thousand years or so ago he created man. It says, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Taken literally, it's wrong.
     
  3. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    This thread is NOT about evidence for god or the factual accuracy of Christrian doctrine. It is about evidence for organisms being created ex nihilo.

    With that said, let us deviate from the central topic and investigate what you have presented.

    I see several problems with this Pangea argument.

    The scientific evidence that is used to support the notion that all the continents were merged together at some point in the past conflicts with the young earth world view.

    The same evidence {fossil, rate of continental drift, age of rock samples} that supports the Pangea hypothesis also supports an old earth. You can't even postulate Pangea without accepting an old earth view.

    What you are doing is cherry picking what fits your worldview while ignoring the mounds of evidence that does not. Where is the consistency?
     
  4. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,158
    Ignostic
    Married
    I find myself, as in my last post, delineating between 'universe' (the set including everything) and 'cosmos' (what we know of the current contents of the universe).

    Which do you mean when you say 'universe'?
    My point is, we have not established that the universe had a beginning, so one should avoid building on that premise. That is what you appear to be doing.
    The term 'god' comes with a lot of baggage and presumptions.

    What if whatever created the universe (or the instantiation of the cosmos) was no more complex or intelligent than say, a toaster oven?
    Or it may just be the *appearance* of some creative intelligence at work, given the demonstrable predilection for humans to see patterns where there may be none.
    I think of agnostic as 'it may be unknowable, or cannot be knowable' - it is not a fence-sitting position.
    Depends. What do you do with this 'god' that you believe exists? Does it offer any more explanatory power than theories or hypothesis that do not evoke deities?
     
  5. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    What it means is that God got it right from the start and there is no need for blind random mutations.
     
  6. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +150
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    Once again, go tell that to the parents of kids with genetic diseases caused by blind mutations.
     
  7. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Where did the first living organism come from? Did it not pop into existence?
    No -- abiogenesis has not been verified.
    Isn't this what scientists must also believe to explain the origin of life?
    Why don't you explain how life originated in the universe?
     
  8. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    When I speak of “the Universe” I am referring to the space-time continuum that we occupy, which began expanding some 13.72 billion years ago according to the Big Bang Theory.

    There is a scientific consensus amongst cosmologists that the Universe did in fact have a finite beginning. Until new scientific data presents itself that seriously challenges this I am justified to build on such premise.

    Indeed, the term ‘god’ does come with many presumptions, this is why I choose not to use such term.

    Then so be it. I am interested in uncovering reality, not dictating it.

    Are you suggesting that patterns in nature are circumstantial evidence of a creative intelligence? It appears you are too me.

    According to science the Universe is loaded with patterns. We aren’t so great at seeking them out either, even when they are right under our noses and all around us. We used to think that many things in nature were randomly arranged until Mandelbrot showed us otherwise in the mid 1970’s with his discovery of fractal and the property of self-similarity. Out of what appeared to be chaos an intricate order revealed itself.

    There is a distinction between knowledge and belief. I would never say I ‘believe’ in my sister because I 'know' her.

    I don't claim to 'know' the cause of the Universe so in a sense I am agnostic. I do however maintain a weak belief that a creative intelligence played a role in bringing it about.

    In my view, design (intention) provides greater explanatory power than chance (non-intention) for the nature of the Universe. The Universe exhibits profound order, harmony and regularity. Our experience of the cause and effect structure of the Universe suggests that these attributes are far better explained by design than chance.
     
  9. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    Exactly.

    From the perspective of spirituality god didn't get it right either and decided to hit the reboot button, i.e., the genesis great flood story.

    The Bible faces many problems, however, when it is interpreted literally the problems become far more numerous and severe.
     
  10. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    What does Creationism say, and what evidence backs it up? Afterall, that is the topic of the thread.

    This thread is about verifying creaitonism. Where is that verification?

    What do creationists believe, and what is the evidence that backs it up?

    Why must creationists continually deflect these questions and drag the conversation back to abiogenesis and evolution?
     
  11. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    Science is ignorant of abiogenesis (how inanimate matter became animate matter).

    The first living organism likely derived from pre-existing matter as does everything else in our Universe that we observe.

    I believe that we will discover that life is an inevitable consequence of the initial conditions of the Universe. That it is a manifestation of laws of physics. Stars, planets, moons, black holes, elements and everything else we observe in the Universe is a result of its initial conditions. No one claims that stars come about by mere chance nor that they require a designer. I believe the same applies to life.

    We are beginning to learn this now. Google: "Is life written into the laws of physics?"

    That is correct.

    Everything that we observe derives from pre-existing matter, therefore, there is no reason to believe life is any different.

    I wish I could.
     
  12. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    I have a question. Do all YEC's believe that god only created life during the seven day period of the genesis story or that he actively creates living organisms?
     
  13. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,419
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    What do you mean by 'organisms'?

    I'm an 'organism' that evolved from my parents, but I'm still a human being.

    And I certainly didn't just 'pop into existence', unless you mean when I was conceived; but frankly, I'm not sure what you mean.
     
  14. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    There are some YEC like Dr Dino that depends on the theory of evolution to explain the biodiversity that he feels took place after Noah and after the flood. Otherwise if there are 5 million different species then Noah would have had to have all of them on the Ark. If there was a world wide flood. We believe it to be impossible for all the different species all over the world to have been on Noah's Ark. So then the flood must have been local and the species on the Ark must have been from the Biodiverse Ecology that is called Eden in the Bible. In other words Noah saved himself, his family and the animals on his farm and in the area he was from. Otherwise that biodiversity hotspot would have gone extinct. Lambs, Sheep, Goats and so on.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 21, 2011
  15. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    I should have worded that sentence better. I could have also been more thoughtful; let me try again.

    If species do not evolve from other species than I only see two ways species can come about:

    1. They pop into existence ex nihilo or;
    2. They come to be from pre-existing matter through natural processes.

    Although there are many people who believe life on earth got started through a natural process — which remains unknown to us — they reject the notion that each individual species resulted from such a way. Biology tells us that all living organisms belong to the same tree of life.

    There are scientists, such as Paul Davies, who are searching for other trees of life here on earth, but this endeavor is very recent and has not produced any results as of yet.

    Many other people, particularly certain theists, believe life is a result of creation ex nihilo by god.

    My question is this: do all biblical literalists believe that all species were created ex nihilo during the seven day creation process described in genesis or do some believe that god continues to intervene and create new species?
     
  16. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    I believe you're wrong about Kent Hovind's (Dr. Dino's) beliefs. I viewed the entire debate with him and Hugh Ross and a couple other of this debates and I'm pretty certain he rejects speciation, which many creationists refer to as 'macro evolution'.

    I would have to believe that many if not most biblical literalists must disagree with your interpretation of the Bible being that you reject a global flood. Certainly someone like the poster AV does.
     
  17. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    You got to be careful of the word many. As a general rule a third believe a third do not believe and a third are undecided. God will not accept undecided. So a third will be saved and two thirds, what some call "many" well perish.

    "“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it" mat 7 13
     
  18. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    Science rejects a Global flood and there is overwelming evidence to support that. But by all means tell us how the Kangaroo got from Australia to Noahs Boat in the Middle East and then back to Australia again after the flood. Or the Tarsier monkey from the Philippines that only lives on one of the islands there. In fact most of the many South Pacific Islands have their own biodiverse species that you only find on that island. I am a Bible literalist. I accept the vast majority of Bishop Usshers work and his book.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    Are you claiming that a Christian who accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior will go to hell because he doesn't believe a particular interpretation of the great flood story?

    How anyone could believe that a all-loving, benevolent, omniscient god would sentence people to eternal damnation for failing to interpret scripture correctly is mind-boggling.
     
  20. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    It would serve you well if you extended the same critical reasoning that lead you to conclude that the great flood story cannot possibly be taken literally to the rest of the Bible.

    Science also rejects the notion that earth is less than 10,000 years old.
     
Loading...