The claim that creationism has verifiable evidence keeps coming up, so here is a thread with which you can enlighten us, especially me as I'm genuinely interested in actual evidence for creationism.
Creationism has no scientific basis whatsoever. It's strictly an article of faith and anyone who attempts to use science to prove it to others is embarassing themselves.
Are you referring to Biblical Creationism or creationism in general?
Creation in general, Two things that all physical life known to man has, water and ATP synthesis. There are no known exceptions in the physical world. They are still learning just how complex these machines really are, rotary motors, coupling rods, pistons,etc.
Theres this little book on my bookshelf about that. Ive no idea where it came from (probably those door-to-door people left it and my mom stuck it on the shelf to get it out of the way) but when I saw this thread I ran and got it. It claims that the mathematical possibilities are impossible (?) and some stuff about how mutations are 99% unpositive (?) and other stuff that either I dont understand or I know has been disproved.
I'm referring to any sort of creationism that relies upon cosmic entities creating the world, rather than the general accepted concept of atomic force.
Theres this little book on my bookshelf about that. Ive no idea where it came from (probably those door-to-door people left it and my mom stuck it on the shelf to get it out of the way) but when I saw this thread I ran and got it. It claims that the mathematical possibilities are impossible (?) and some stuff about how mutations are 99% unpositive (?) and other stuff that either I dont understand or I know has been disproved.
I'm referring to any sort of creationism that relies upon cosmic entities creating the world, rather than the general accepted concept of atomic force.
Yeah but theyre the only two I can really make sense of. The whole thing seems more "Evolution is wrong and here is why." I really wish I wasnt dumb so I could explain this better
I've looked at bits from Answers in Genesis. I think I can safely say that the scientific proof comes from one or all of the following sources:
a)really bad archaeology
a2)selective reading of archaeology.
b)poor understanding of parts of science
c)lots of obfuscating text
d)trying to find work arounds. (Like the Catholics explaing the two different creation stories in Genesis as "Two separate perspectives of the same account" and ignoring parts of the text. I really don' see how you can mix up the order of creation. Especialy when it is Gods word. I'm pretty sure God knows what order creation was made in.)
e) gullibility. I don't know how to frame this nicely. People believe what they want to believe. Many people want to believe in, if not YECism, at least Intelligent Design. In many areas Intelligent Design has been soundly rejected on the basis of no scientific merit. However, once these people discover there is 'scientific merit' to Inteligent Design that answers all of their questions, they leave it at that and don't inquire further, satisfied that their belief is backed up by the Bible and posesses scientific validity.
The idea that God created the world or had something to do with it is one thing but the idea that it all happened 6000 years ago is just insanity. Why is this an article of faith or is it?
I'm referring to any sort of creationism that relies upon cosmic entities creating the world, rather than the general accepted concept of atomic force.
The thing is, evolutionary theory has been examined for years now without revealing any evidence of a supernatural force.
If creationists want their theories to be treated with the same respect, they have to start bringing evidence to the table. Simply saying "You can't prove that we're wrong" just doesn't cut it.
I think there's a possibility of a first cause type of creation (i.e. something fine-tuned the laws of physics, kicked off the Big Bang, etc), but I certainly don't believe the story of Genesis to be anything other than man's mythical account of creation.
That's why it's supernatural, it's hard to measure by scientific means.
But we are limited in what we could do. Could God not have created the first microbes or whatever they were? Could he not have caused the Big Bang? (Or, the first big Bang if we subscribe to the Big Crunch theory)
The Deist God could very easily have done these, since he exists solely to set the laws in motion.
---
As for Young Earth Creationism, I don't really think there's any hope for that besides faith. But you can easily reconcile a billions year old universe that started with the simplest forms of life with God.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
