Proof Of Creation
- Thread starter Chad
- Start date
One thing I've noticed about people who believe in creation is that they are very quick to point out flaws in the secular scientific theories of the formation of the universe, formation of the earth, formation of life on earth, evolution of life on earth, etc.
Well, this seems to be the perfect thread for it. What DO creationists propose as THEIR model. You've heard again and again what 'evolutionists' will tell you, what is your idea on the beginning of the world?
Well, this seems to be the perfect thread for it. What DO creationists propose as THEIR model. You've heard again and again what 'evolutionists' will tell you, what is your idea on the beginning of the world?
Mr. Traverse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 53
This is a great point. Even if evolution is not true, or even if we don't know the answer to a question, this does not automatically default the answer to "God", and certainly not to any one particular God (the God of the Bible). I'm very interested in the hypotheses Christians are willing to present as viable alternative models that better explain our observations of reality.
Respectfully,
Traverse
Donnie Ducati
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 209
Sorry for this long post (paste) >
The Truth about Evolution
There is more to discussing evolution than debating the age of the earth or the wing breadth of the archaeopteryx. There is value, for example, in examining how evolutionists make their defense. Looking beyond the argument to the arguer's techniques can expose fallacious reasoning which keep many from considering the God of Creation.
If Christians plan to argue from the Genesis account of creation, they must first support biblical authenticity. Although the Bible can be supported, that may be the long way around. When Scripture is introduced, evolutionists launch into one of their "best" fallacies: false distinction — the banning of "religion" from scientific debate.
A shortcut is to point out how evolutionists engage in logical fallacies such as the "straw man," "bias ad hominem," "false distinction," and "non sequitur" fallacies. The first three are used in attempts to invalidate the creationists' stance; the fourth endeavors to validate macroevolution (the change from one species into another) as legitimate science.
The Truth about Evolution- The Argument You So Eloquently Refuted Was Not Mine! A strawman fallacy involves the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to refute him or her easily. Stephen Jay Gould, in his article, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in the May 1981 issue of Discover Magazine, attempted to refute creationism by saying, "We have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and the laboratory." His point: evolution is an irrefutable fact, and creationists ignore this certainty.
Yet, the evidence he cited supported microevolution, involving changes that take place within separate species. Creationists have no contention with the concept of microevolution.
In fact, A. E. Wilder-Smith, in his book The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (T.W.F.T. Publishers), makes a case for both negative and positive mutations (microevolution) working against macroevolution. Negative mutations weaken the creature, a tendency that does not support survival of the fittest; positive mutations make it a stronger creature, helping to preserve its own class. In the latter case, the variations are the means that allow the species to survive distinct from other species.
The fact that many evolutionists use microevolution to refute creationism shows the seriousness of this fallacy. Pointing this out can dispel the misconception that Christians do not accept scientific fact.
The Truth about Evolution- Religious Bias Disqualifies. A bias ad hominem fallacy has to do with disqualifying someone's argument simply because the arguer has a special bias in the issue. For example, someone with a religious experience or belief is disqualified from having a valid opinion about his or her own religion. It is fitting to check the soundness of a biased person's argument, but it is wrong to reject the argument solely because of the arguer's bias.
In the 1982 trial of McLean vs. Arkansas, which centered around teaching both theories of origins in public schools, questions were raised concerning the religious beliefs of the creation experts. Objections by the defense (creationists) were consistently overruled. Yet, what the proponents believe is beside the point.
Of course, there are those who combat evolution who are not religious, but even that is beside the point. Religious belief is not necessarily based on fact, but neither is it necessarily founded in falsehood. A "religious" view might actually be true. If we don't allow it to be heard, how can we claim to uphold free inquiry?
The Truth about Evolution...Because Creationism Is Religion. The "false distinction" fallacy relegates creationism to a different category, thereby falsely nullifying it. To evolutionists, religion often disregards science (illustrated in the church-motivated condemnation of Galileo). Science is described as what is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. With that definition, creationism is not science. Yet, neither is macroevolution.
The false distinction is between evolution and creationism as "science versus religion" instead of evidence for evolution versus evidence for creationism. If the argument never gets to that level, again free inquiry is stifled.
The Truth about Evolution- To Believe in the Miracle of Evolution. Suppose evolutionists abandoned the above three problem areas and debated creationists on equal terms. Would their position then prove reliable? Not really, because the fallacy known as non sequitur — Latin for "it does not follow" — becomes an immediate issue. Microevolution leading to macroevolution, discussed earlier, is one example.
The celebrated "missing links" as concrete evidence is another. The role of fossils as transitional forms is speculative at best in comparison with documented, trackable microevolution. Yet, evolutionists often use these "proofs" interchangeably as though the reliability of the one naturally follows the credibility of the other.
Also problematic is concluding from molecular biology that there is a common ancestry for all organisms. It does not follow that because all life shares a common biochemical basis, that relationship was brought about through evolution. In engineering this type of creative diversity from the same basic building blocks is good design, the result of a designer.
Finally, it does not follow that because religion was wrong about Galileo, it is in error about creationism. The same evolutionists who insist that their own past mistakes should not be held against their position (e.g., promoting false "missing links" such as the Piltdown man) are often unwilling to allow their intellectual opponents to have human failings as well.
Because the above fallacies are common, many people cannot "hear" the scientific evidence for creation, they cannot accept the Genesis account, they cannot listen unbiased to what they consider a biased view. If we can expose these flaws, we may earn the privilege of leading them beyond God as Creator to God as Savior.
The Truth about Evolution
There is more to discussing evolution than debating the age of the earth or the wing breadth of the archaeopteryx. There is value, for example, in examining how evolutionists make their defense. Looking beyond the argument to the arguer's techniques can expose fallacious reasoning which keep many from considering the God of Creation.
If Christians plan to argue from the Genesis account of creation, they must first support biblical authenticity. Although the Bible can be supported, that may be the long way around. When Scripture is introduced, evolutionists launch into one of their "best" fallacies: false distinction — the banning of "religion" from scientific debate.
A shortcut is to point out how evolutionists engage in logical fallacies such as the "straw man," "bias ad hominem," "false distinction," and "non sequitur" fallacies. The first three are used in attempts to invalidate the creationists' stance; the fourth endeavors to validate macroevolution (the change from one species into another) as legitimate science.
The Truth about Evolution- The Argument You So Eloquently Refuted Was Not Mine! A strawman fallacy involves the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to refute him or her easily. Stephen Jay Gould, in his article, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in the May 1981 issue of Discover Magazine, attempted to refute creationism by saying, "We have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and the laboratory." His point: evolution is an irrefutable fact, and creationists ignore this certainty.
Yet, the evidence he cited supported microevolution, involving changes that take place within separate species. Creationists have no contention with the concept of microevolution.
In fact, A. E. Wilder-Smith, in his book The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (T.W.F.T. Publishers), makes a case for both negative and positive mutations (microevolution) working against macroevolution. Negative mutations weaken the creature, a tendency that does not support survival of the fittest; positive mutations make it a stronger creature, helping to preserve its own class. In the latter case, the variations are the means that allow the species to survive distinct from other species.
The fact that many evolutionists use microevolution to refute creationism shows the seriousness of this fallacy. Pointing this out can dispel the misconception that Christians do not accept scientific fact.
The Truth about Evolution- Religious Bias Disqualifies. A bias ad hominem fallacy has to do with disqualifying someone's argument simply because the arguer has a special bias in the issue. For example, someone with a religious experience or belief is disqualified from having a valid opinion about his or her own religion. It is fitting to check the soundness of a biased person's argument, but it is wrong to reject the argument solely because of the arguer's bias.
In the 1982 trial of McLean vs. Arkansas, which centered around teaching both theories of origins in public schools, questions were raised concerning the religious beliefs of the creation experts. Objections by the defense (creationists) were consistently overruled. Yet, what the proponents believe is beside the point.
Of course, there are those who combat evolution who are not religious, but even that is beside the point. Religious belief is not necessarily based on fact, but neither is it necessarily founded in falsehood. A "religious" view might actually be true. If we don't allow it to be heard, how can we claim to uphold free inquiry?
The Truth about Evolution...Because Creationism Is Religion. The "false distinction" fallacy relegates creationism to a different category, thereby falsely nullifying it. To evolutionists, religion often disregards science (illustrated in the church-motivated condemnation of Galileo). Science is described as what is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. With that definition, creationism is not science. Yet, neither is macroevolution.
The false distinction is between evolution and creationism as "science versus religion" instead of evidence for evolution versus evidence for creationism. If the argument never gets to that level, again free inquiry is stifled.
The Truth about Evolution- To Believe in the Miracle of Evolution. Suppose evolutionists abandoned the above three problem areas and debated creationists on equal terms. Would their position then prove reliable? Not really, because the fallacy known as non sequitur — Latin for "it does not follow" — becomes an immediate issue. Microevolution leading to macroevolution, discussed earlier, is one example.
The celebrated "missing links" as concrete evidence is another. The role of fossils as transitional forms is speculative at best in comparison with documented, trackable microevolution. Yet, evolutionists often use these "proofs" interchangeably as though the reliability of the one naturally follows the credibility of the other.
Also problematic is concluding from molecular biology that there is a common ancestry for all organisms. It does not follow that because all life shares a common biochemical basis, that relationship was brought about through evolution. In engineering this type of creative diversity from the same basic building blocks is good design, the result of a designer.
Finally, it does not follow that because religion was wrong about Galileo, it is in error about creationism. The same evolutionists who insist that their own past mistakes should not be held against their position (e.g., promoting false "missing links" such as the Piltdown man) are often unwilling to allow their intellectual opponents to have human failings as well.
Because the above fallacies are common, many people cannot "hear" the scientific evidence for creation, they cannot accept the Genesis account, they cannot listen unbiased to what they consider a biased view. If we can expose these flaws, we may earn the privilege of leading them beyond God as Creator to God as Savior.
ItinerantLurker
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 107
If I'm not mistaken, this is precisely what you have been invited to do in this very thread.
Lurker
Hello all.
Genesis 1 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
The real Big Bang. No natural cause assumption needs to be made.
No assumptions, look no hands.
Genesis 1 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
The real Big Bang. No natural cause assumption needs to be made.
No assumptions, look no hands.
ItinerantLurker
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 107
Just a whole lot of assumptions about a supernatural cause.
Well no, obviously, you're make quite a number of assumptions - none of which seem to be based on anything other than being the explanation you, personally, would prefer. It could just as easily (and probably more so) have been caused by something trivial, or something temporary, or by a god who simply didn't care about the universe, or an assembly of gods, or by a different god than the one you are most comfortable with.
As you may have noticed - assuming the supernatural doesn't seem to actually get us anywhere.
Lurker
Thiscrosshurts
Active
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,630
What should it be defaulted to natural,nature,mother nature.Science still names a force as the source.
Which name would you prefer as the default force.
Personally I don't think the bible contains a chronological
record of creation."In the beginning" can mean many things.
The fact that the first human scenes were in a "garden" is telling.
With the knowledge of good and evil man was forced into the "field" and after Cain killed Able he was forced from the field into the "wilderness".
Cain was afraid of the wilderness because "men"would find and kill him.
I feel it's doubtful that it ever meant to describe the origins of mankind or men,only of man.
Here is a test for evolution from an industrialist and or financier standpoint.How are we going to make money from a commercial application of these new discoveries.
No money,no research.
So what invention are we using today that came from evolution?
What commercial for profit enterprise has research and development on evolution?
It's a lot easier to kill a sacred cow than to birth one.
Last edited:
Mr. Traverse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 53
The point is that if we don't know, we don't default to anything.
I'm not sure why this matters, but have you heard of the medical field?
Respectfully,
Traverse
Hello all.
I am surprised at your answer Itinerant Lurker.
I told you before that God contacts humans, revelation.
Revelation has no assumption base.
Revelation of God is not theism.
Revelation means you know God, not so much belief therein.
It is not some theoretical construction.
It is not an intellectual assent.
Nor, is it modified over time.
I am surprised at your answer Itinerant Lurker.
I told you before that God contacts humans, revelation.
Revelation has no assumption base.
Revelation of God is not theism.
Revelation means you know God, not so much belief therein.
It is not some theoretical construction.
It is not an intellectual assent.
Nor, is it modified over time.
Josef Chaplar
Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6
Simple Faith
Reading all the posts about creation or evolution I have come to realise how simple my faith is.
I was trained as a professional farmer/agriculturist and for some years practiced - mainly as an animal breeder, so evolution is not a strange concept to me.
I also know the damage evolutionist thinking can do. When man thinks he has the answer he promote evolution from theory to god.A university professor, I sorry I forget her name, once said "How cleverly evolution created the eye!"
When I came to believe in the Lord Jesus I realized I don't have to understand everything. Now I believe in a Creator God I can enjoy all things around me.I read what new research has found and each time I know more of the greatness of God. He leads even an unbeliever to more understanding, revealing His creation and His ongoing work.
There is no need for me to prove Creation, it is all around me. God is still God whether men believe in Him or not, but it makes a lot of difference to men. I believe in and enjoy all creation; I enjoy and long to know more about evolution, that is God's continuing work in this world; so I can know more about Him, my Lord and God.
Reading all the posts about creation or evolution I have come to realise how simple my faith is.
I was trained as a professional farmer/agriculturist and for some years practiced - mainly as an animal breeder, so evolution is not a strange concept to me.
I also know the damage evolutionist thinking can do. When man thinks he has the answer he promote evolution from theory to god.A university professor, I sorry I forget her name, once said "How cleverly evolution created the eye!"
When I came to believe in the Lord Jesus I realized I don't have to understand everything. Now I believe in a Creator God I can enjoy all things around me.I read what new research has found and each time I know more of the greatness of God. He leads even an unbeliever to more understanding, revealing His creation and His ongoing work.
There is no need for me to prove Creation, it is all around me. God is still God whether men believe in Him or not, but it makes a lot of difference to men. I believe in and enjoy all creation; I enjoy and long to know more about evolution, that is God's continuing work in this world; so I can know more about Him, my Lord and God.
Kit Carson
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
- Messages
- 433
Yes Josef:
Your words are from God. It is really so very simple. God simply asks that we believe in him, nothing more, nothing less. His truth and message is also very simple and demands little. One only has to look at the sky, the stars, and the earth and all things and know in your heart all things are created by God. That we are even now a part of his ongoing creation and all things have an end purpose.
Yes sir, it is actually so very simple.
Thank You.
Kit
Science does try to prove evolution and so do those who call themselves evolutionary scientists. How ever evolution is not a science but it is a philosife pardon my spelling,
since we can not observe evolution but only the earths processes that cant be called evolution. Nor can can they be called creative processes. evolutionists try to superimpose there model onto a specially created world and it will never fit. All scientific findings can be shown to fit creation ferfectly but they ignor it and hammer square pegs into round holes.
since we can not observe evolution but only the earths processes that cant be called evolution. Nor can can they be called creative processes. evolutionists try to superimpose there model onto a specially created world and it will never fit. All scientific findings can be shown to fit creation ferfectly but they ignor it and hammer square pegs into round holes.
Last year a david susuki special was braudcast on disscovery net about the great lakes. they were trying to prove evolution with some so called evidence. they sent divers down to the bottom of lake ontario I think, and they found a forest of trees still standing down there. they checked the age of the trees and found them to be 8000 years old not millions. however they did not understand that those lakes were not there 8000 years ago. to support the flood and the fact that there can only have been one short ice age just 4500 years. All findings will always support creation.
Look up the disscoveries of Dr.Robert Gentry on polonium hailos.
Look up the disscoveries of Dr.Robert Gentry on polonium hailos.
Brother Mike
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,335
Great post!!
Thank you for the post!! Certainly if you can not peer review something against your own scientific findings, then your scientific findings are wrong!!! Proving the Earth was created and formed as the Bible said it was in a very short time. No more than 8,000 years, not billions.
I would post the links, but after checking them out There is material being sold there. Good material on proving creation is in fact what occurred.
There are also free video's explaining their findings.
Jesus Is Lord.
Thank you for the post!! Certainly if you can not peer review something against your own scientific findings, then your scientific findings are wrong!!! Proving the Earth was created and formed as the Bible said it was in a very short time. No more than 8,000 years, not billions.
I would post the links, but after checking them out There is material being sold there. Good material on proving creation is in fact what occurred.
There are also free video's explaining their findings.
Jesus Is Lord.
Mr. Traverse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 53
Evolution is a theory that explains biodiversity, and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Whether or not you accept the evidence is secondary to the theory being an actual factual theory.
Respectfully,
Traverse
Aren't there missing links in the theory of evolution though?
Brother Mike
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,335
Just posting
Fraction:
I was just posting some things I read, I have no idea how old the earth is.
Jesus Is Lord.
Fraction:
I was just posting some things I read, I have no idea how old the earth is.
Jesus Is Lord.
