Evidence for creationism

[Arakhor]

After the Fall, i.e. after the banishment from Eden? That's a creation story if ever I heard one. Next you'll be expecting me to believe that Thor and Loki really did come down from Asgard in disguise and spend the night with some poor crofters.

Why does the Bible not mention dinosaurs?

 

[Ajidica]

Before the fall, everyone and everything was vegetarian. After the fall, the curse instantly changed everything into a world much like we have today.

Then why would God create dino's with poorly designed teeth for their given diet? Either God was incapable of designing proper teeth or he knew we would fall and do nothing to stop it, proving that God is a prick.

Why does the Bible not mention dinosaurs?

Because God wanted to tempt us to test the faithful. You just have to think about this stuff the right way.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm just trying to picture fourteen T-rex, apatosauruses, diplodocuses and so on, as well as the two (?) woolly mammoths, Indian elephants etc., all packed into the Ark. At least the fourteen archaeopteryxes and pterodactyls could roost on the top, so didn't need space in the Ark.

 

[Cynovolans]

I'm just trying to picture fourteen T-rex, apatosauruses, diplodocuses and so on, as well as the two (?) woolly mammoths, Indian elephants etc., all packed into the Ark. At least the fourteen archaeopteryxes and pterodactyls could roost on the top, so didn't need space in the Ark.

I think they were the animals left behind.

 

[Xanikk999]

It's useless trying to argue against a creationist. They reject logic due to faith no matter the amount of scientific proof.

I see little point's for any thread arguing against creationism due to the lack of creationists on this board and the fact they can just simply reject any scientifically backed argument.

 

[BasketCase]

Why convince Creationists? The thread is just as productive for everybody else; it shows people besides Creationists where the follies of Creationism lie.

 

[kiwitt]

The creationists could have presented this video. It makes the case for life appearing by chance very very very unlikely in the extreme.


Link to video.

However, science is still researching answers and it will never finish ... anytime soon.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Is that video based on Lee Strobel's book of the same name? Because AFAIK that book has already been thrashed pretty well by Strobel's critics.

EDIT: Nevermind, it is based off his book. Do I really want to spend an hour on this?

 

[ParkCungHee]

The creationists could have presented this video. It makes the case for life appearing by chance very very very unlikely in the extreme.


Link to video.

However, science is still researching answers and it will never finish ... anytime soon.

Something being unlikely does not require, or even point towards divine interference.

 

[History_Buff]

The creationists could have presented this video. It makes the case for life appearing by chance very very very unlikely in the extreme.

I'm not about to watch that video, since it's a bloody hour long, and has a (albeit pretty sweet) musical intro.

But people who make this argument do not understand probability, and just how long the Earth existed prior to the emergence of life.


EDIT: 15 minutes in, I'm struck by how sure they were that the Miller-Urey experiment had been widely discredited by claims that the early Earth's atmosphere was vastly different from what Miller assumed it to be. I cannot seem to locate any strong conclusion that the result of said experiment have been discredited, or that the results would be any different in a nitrogen dominated atmosphere.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No I am not because that would have stopped at the fall. So I am not rejecting anything. I no longer believe this is possible. Not that I have any proof besides the Bible for my theory, but if Creationism is not proven false than neither is that.

You don't make a Scientific Theory by making something up and then waiting for it to be proven false. You first start with observations, you record those observations, you try to find method, cause and effect in those observations, you make a model which includes those, you test the model by making predictions using it and check whether those predictions are true (before any Creationist opens their mouth, yes the Evolution Theory has done this), if they are then you have a Scientific Theory. But it doesn't end there. you publish the Scientific Theory and have other Scientists test your theory by using it on their observations, when an observation doesn't fit, your theory is lacking and you adjust the model to take those observations into account.

It's a long tedious work intensive process every Scientific Theory has to go through and is still going through. To sit back and go: "Pssah, OUR scientific theory is specjul, I don't have to prove or test it, no, no, no, other people have to do my work. I'll just sit back and have my scientific free lunch thank you very much. Maybe I'll make a clay dinosaur and put it beside a clay cavemen so I can point at that and go 'see?!. I can do science me.' " is seriously missing the point.

 

[sophie]

It's a long tedious work intensive process every Scientific Theory has to go through and is still going through. To sit back and go: "Pssah, OUR scientific theory is specjul, I don't have to prove or test it, no, no, no, other people have to do my work. I'll just sit back and have my scientific free lunch thank you very much. Maybe I'll make a clay dinosaur and put it beside a clay cavemen so I can point at that and go 'see?!. I can do science me.' " is seriously missing the point.

But you have to admit, making clay models is pretty damn cool.

 

[Trev]

Why does the Bible not mention dinosaurs?

The Bible does describe two dinosaurs in a fair bit of detail, just read the Book of Job, chapters about 38 and 39, a quick read will find it, probably nearly a page of description in detail.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Uh-huh.
Can you point to which species of Dinosaur breathed fire, had high-beams and you know, lived in the ocean?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But you have to admit, making clay models is pretty damn cool.

Indeed. I have no choice but to admit that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Indeed. I have no choice but to admit that.

And in all likelyhood, the real paleontologists would also like to go to their office and make clay dinosaurs too.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And have them breathe fire at regular intervals during the day. Probably each time the time is a prime-time.

Eh? Eh? Prime-time. Get it? Eh?

 

[carlosMM]

Correct. After the fall, some of them became meat eaters.

Then why the functional adaptations prior to the fall? What caused them? Or were apples and pears actually meaty, before the fall?

I think they were the animals left behind.

Please cite the respective bible verses!

In fact, there is nothing in the bible suggesting that large parts of "creation" were "left behind".

 

[ParkCungHee]

Then why the functional adaptations prior to the fall? What caused them? Or were apples and pears actually meaty, before the fall?

Can you imagine how absolutely horrible eden must have been for the Tyrannosaurus?
It wouldn't have had the fine motor skills to eat anything.
Or the Hookworm?
The Anemone would have to wait patiently for a plant to grow directly into it's mouth.
What would a Jelly Fish eat, and how could it even determine if it's eating it?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think they were the animals left behind.

This always puzzled me: Allowing for this is extrabiblical, and directly contradicts what the bible says.
God commanded Noah to gather all of the animals, and the Bible said he did just that.
Even if you think it was not mentioning, if the bible can conflate "all" with "less than 1% of" you have to wonder what the point of taking it literally means, since you're taking something which can mean anything literally.