Evidence for creationism

[ParadigmShifter]

I posted that because the discussion had turned to evolution. I know it's irrelevant to YEC. Not many takers for evidence for it in this thread though.

 

[Smidlee]

I have explained why this reasoning is fallacious already.
]

Stating what we know and what we don't is not an argument from ignorance as I pointed out before. If that so then it goes both ways. I'm not arguing from ignorance but point out our ignorance. This is a very sorry defense since there will be always things we don't know. Any thing that uses the "unknown" as a defense can not be falsified.

 

[Arakhor]

Then come up with a decent argument for creationism.

 

[Smidlee]

Then come up with a decent argument for creationism.

I have made the point before , either way it's a matter of faith;
either Life created the universe or universe created life.
Both sides do agree on certain things. For example there has to be an unknown and unseen form of life which is not like physical life today which needs very complex protein machines.

 

[Tabster]

What if you believe that clock-making video is completely wrong on just about everything it says about clockwork.

Do you have to give up on evolution and start believing in creationism?

You've left me in a right pickle over this, Mr Shifter ! Wish I hadn't watched it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

That's just the Coldplay music. I did warn you.

 

[lovexylitol]

As far as math , the maximum amount of information all life on the planet since the beginning can find in a ramdom process is 1000 bits.

I assume that this indirectly infers chemical elements. Or whatever it is, you are having trouble to believe that there were 1000(at max of you being very generous to scientist) elements some time at the "beginning", and now there are sequences of information that are "perfectly" sequenced so that humans can exist? (which does make sense, because many scientist also have problems proving that, but does not mean creationism is true)

That is pretty much the same what the people said in the previous threads.

Creationism "God(or some deity) made it."
Science "We do not know. Show me some proof. We have proof for pre-human, modern-human evolution, and also proof in the ecosystem, theories, models, genetic sequence mutation that actually influences our modern day lives."

So who is demanding proof?

 

[emzie]

I'm not arguing from ignorance but point out our ignorance.

eg, arguing from ignorance. That phrase doesn't mean you're standing around talking out your backside, but that you are pointing to things without adequate explanation and saying, "that couldn't happen by natural occurrences, ergo god" That's a dreadful view of the world as it stymies any new thought. Why try and understand why bacteria develop resistances to antibiotics? The answer is obviously because god wants them to.

 

[Atlas14]

Bible doesn't say God created the universe

Fine, he created Earth and Heaven. But failed 347 times to create a successful elephant in 5 million years...

I dont have a problem with evolution or creation

What is this even supposed to mean...? Just because you don't have a problem with either doesn't mean both are equally plausible and supported by the same amount of evidence.

 

[kill fire]

1. Perhaps God's omniscience is of all things past and present, but not future. God can't know the future perfectly, as otherwise free will kind of loses its purpose; he may know all the possible futures via knowing the outcomes of every action, but perhaps not THE future.

But then he doesn't know everything, and therefore is not God.

2. God's unconditional love would prevent him from punishing Lucifer, especially for crimes he had yet to commit.

Unconditional love? Have you ever even READ the old testament? So he's unwilling to punish Lucifer, who he knows will become the greatest evil in existence one day, but he'll kill masses of humans? That just doesn't make sense to ne.

 

[Dumanios]

2. God's unconditional love would prevent him from punishing Lucifer, especially for crimes he had yet to commit.

So imprisoning SaTan and his demons and imps to a burning prison called Hell isn't punishment enough?

 

[kill fire]

So imprisoning SaTan and his demons and imps to a burning prison called Hell isn't punishment enough?

Actually, if Satan is really as sadistic he's said to be, wouldn't that be paradise for him?

 

[Dumanios]

Actually, if Satan is really as sadistic he's said to be, wouldn't that be paradise for him?

Hmm, touche.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, if Satan is really as sadistic he's said to be, wouldn't that be paradise for him?

That depends on what Satan is believed to up to while he's there- Dante, for example, had him frozen waist-deep in ice, which isn't exactly a ton of laughs.

 

[ParkCungHee]

This is very relevent
http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible_p2.html
"As for Satan being the ruler of hell, that's a misconception we can probably blame on John Milton. In Paradise Lost, Satan famously ed: "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." But there's a reason why God cast Satan and his minions into hell instead of Wisconsin: Hell sucks for everyone including imps and demons. According to 2 Peter 2:4: "God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into chains of darkness to be held for judgment."

That's right, chains and prisons ... for them. No iron fortresses, no fiery thrones, no mention of Satan ruling the cell block ... all of that is from the Bible's extended universe and fan fiction."

 

[Xanikk999]

Is there any reference to the description of hell in biblical sources? I am not well versed in the matter but i do not recall the images imagined in western culture as actually described in the bible. Other than fire and brimstone perhaps.

 

[Berzerker]

Fine, he created Earth and Heaven. But failed 347 times to create a successful elephant in 5 million years...

They weren't successful? And Heaven and Earth aint what you think, but it does explain the gnostic gospel (Philip?) that has Jesus telling his followers the "creator" of Heaven and Earth is not God and is not to be worshiped for it is more a "thing" than a being. But "God" didn't create all those variants of the elephant, evolution did that. God just provided the spark that life needed to get started.

What is this even supposed to mean...? Just because you don't have a problem with either doesn't mean both are equally plausible and supported by the same amount of evidence.

It means there is no conflict between evolution and creation in my mind... And I didn't say they were "equally plausible" and supported by the same amount of evidence (what kind of argument is that, other than a strawman?). Before evolution could occur, creation had to happen. And I already gave some of the evidence for that on page 2 and wont bother repeating it now.

Is there any reference to the description of hell in biblical sources? I am not well versed in the matter but i do not recall the images imagined in western culture as actually described in the bible. Other than fire and brimstone perhaps.

The Hebrew word "sheol" means the grave... The imagery of our Hell came from other peoples later on, for the most part. A peculiar mix of old and new appears in Dante's Inferno and is based on Virgil and even earlier Greek writers who may have gotten their stuff from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The "Father" of Greek astronomy Democritus traveled there and upon his return he told his fellow Greeks there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye. And just as the Egyptian "Duat" - and the Pharaoh's journey to join the gods in the sky - describes what is at first a subterranean environment, Dante's Inferno also ends up describing a celestial voyage.

 

[Miles Teg]

Minor mutations over time is not enough for evolution to work. Instead massive improbable mutations are necessary for life forms to change and to exist in the first place. The ATP synphesis is a very complex miniscule protein motor in every cell that generates energy for the cell. It is totally implausible that mutations could have formed this protein motor and then replicated it in every cell, much too complex for it to be mathematically possible, yet life cannot exist without it. It is the complexity of the inner cell workings that are the best evidence for a designer and therefore for creationism.

First of all, kudos for the input. This thread has had a sore lack of creationists actually willing to put forth the arguments they believe.

With that said, there's really no excuse to be a creationist in this day and age. I realize that there's a whole cottage industry devoted to making bookoo bucks by reinforcing the creationist world view, but these days, you can find responses to specific Creationist arguments by spending ten minutes with Google. Notably, these responses are by actual scientists, who aren't getting paid to conclude anything. You seem to be drawing on Michael Behe here. Unfortunately, his "work" is over a decade old, and science has moved on

Anyways, on to the nitty gritty of the actual argument: The ATP synthase uses a rotary motor system that's pretty rare in the microbial world. Because of the inherent complexity and uniqueness of this system, it gets cited a lot by the better class of creationist as an example of "irreducible complexity". The problem is, scientists are pretty sure exactly how the thing evolved. It's actually a fusion of two very pre-existing parts of the mitochondria, both of which were quite useful. A series of random mutations occurred, and were either inert or evolutionarily useful, so there was a slight trend towards it's evolution. The reason that this system is so widespread is because the ATP synthase and it's rotary motor system evolved early in the history of life, and it was useful enough to become very widespread, like a grandfather with a lot of grandkids.

For the record, there are some other similar motors preforming other function for single-celled organisms, and we have a decent idea of how those evolved, all taking advantage of existing systems. And of course, if God really did go about designing everything, one has to wonder why he uses sometimes uses different designs, and other times uses the same design for trivial things. It's the biological equivalent of hiding fossils in the Earth's geological strata, only even more blatantly obvious. Admittedly, it's more subtle than the starlight shining down on Earth from millions of light years away.

 

[Leifmk]

I'm surprised that more YEC evidence hasn't surfaced here.

After having followed the "debate" such as it is, off and on, for over twenty years here and there, I'm pretty well convinced that this is because there isn't any.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed.

It's the rehashing of the same ol' debunked scientific sounding nonsense from the truth distorting creation.com.