A question for creationists (no trolling inside)?
I was talking to a creationist a little while ago and what he had to say. He had no evidence whatsoever for proof of creation, but only attacks on Evolution.
Could a creationist please provide evidence for the proof of god that does not include
1. Attacks on evolution
2. Carbon dating is wrong
3. The eye
4. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
5. Transitional forms (ok this is part of evolution i know)
6. Quotes from the Bible
So really what i am looking for is scientific evidence that would support a creationist standpoint and i am sure that there are plenty of very intelligent people out there who could provide me with this information.
Remember that saying that something is so complex it could have only have come from God means nothing as following that logic we could quite easily have been created by an alien race.
This is not a trolling question as i like no know the information on all sides of the debate.
My thanks for your answers.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The brain dead Jesus is the perfect example of how there is no way to establish a reasonable dialogue with the Creationist crowd.
- AVIATORLv 41 decade ago
The simplest scientific evidence that I could give you is this; What is the result of an immense explosion? ( A.) A Solar system / Universe that is Perfectly Balanced and synchronized in a perpetual Order within minute degrees. Or (B.) utter kayos and disorganized scattered matter and debris. I would also say non-scientifically though, just open your eyes and look at the heavens, then the earth and all it's multitude of different species of plants and animals and then use that thing that is inside your skull for something more than a space filler. I will quote one thing that God says to which I wholeheartedly agree, ie. the heavens and nature itself declares that there is a creator, so man is totally without excuse for not seeking Him!
- ashes_to_beautyLv 51 decade ago
You want to set the terms for a discussion... we have the same information.. the difference is our presuppositions concerning that evidence.. causing a different interpretation... no one alive was there at creation.. that being true.. no one can positively say what happened.. only God was there.. and His written word tells us exactly what happened... you choose, by faith, to believe what you have been told by another human who has interpreted the information to accept evolution as fact.. I choose to believe the only One who was there... Father and Creator of All.. God.
"A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: “The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30); “And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts the proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history"
- delsydebothomLv 41 decade ago
I am not a creationist*, but I do believe in God. Give me a moment to gather my notes, and I'll give you my reasons for thinking God exists.
* By this I mean I do not think the hypothesis/biblical interpretation today called called "creationism" is correct. Nor do I think that hypothesis called "Intelligent Design" is correct. I do, however, think that God is the source of the being of all things, everywhere and at all times holding them in existence.
Reason 1: Things change. Change is the process of reducing potential into act.
Now, nothing can give itself what it does not have. If it could, it would be both in act and in potency with respect to the same thing; it would both be and not be at the same time and in the same way. This is the reason why I cannot give myself the ability to fly. I can, however, as a changer, give an object the ability to fly.
This principle creates a complex network of changers and changed things. Now, note that this complexity is just a matter of interest; it has no bearing on the argument itself, and I don't think arguments from complexity are valid.
Anyway, at first glance there appear to be three options: the chain of changers goes 1) on to infinity or 2) in a circle, or 3) has a beginning.
Before I continue, let me clarify # 3. This beginning does *not* mean a beginning *in time*. It refers instead to some first principle that is not contingent on other things for its existence.
Moving on, let's examine the infinite chain. Using the metaphor of a chain hanging from the sky demonstrates the unworkability of this solution; how can we explain why the chain is hanging simply by adding new links to the top of the chain? Saying we have an infinite number of links only pushes the problem further back (and besides, it wouldn't explain why this infinite chain in there at all). Any at any rate, this is dodging the issue; the number of changers, even if that number is infinite, has no bearing on the question of why change happens.
The circle option doesn't work, either; in making the universe a perpetual machine of sorts, you may explain the change of each item in the whole, but you would not explain the change of the thing *as* a whole.
This leads us with the third option: there must be a prime changer, something that is the source and origin of all change, which fully and completely accounts for itself. It would have to be unchangeable, for if it had the potential to change, it would at some point, and require a changer to explain its existence. To not be changeable means to have to potency, no potential, no way to be anything other than what it is; hence the prime changer must be pure act as act. Act is always an act of Being, and thus we must conclude that there exists pure act, pure being, with no shadow of non-being. Once we've concluded that, we can begin to examine what such a being would, by logical necessity, be.
Reason 2: Given that pure act exists, we can start to look at what that means. Aristotle tackled this question in his "Metaphysics", but St. Thomas Aquinas was more thorough, beginning here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article1
Please note that in the above article, St. Thomas Aquinas uses, for convenience, the word "God" to refer to what we've been calling "pure act" and "pure being". For the purposes of his argument, these phrases are interchangeable until he reaches question 27, at which point the general identity of "that being whose essence it is to exist" has been successfully identified with the God of Abraham. Pax!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
There is none.
And most creationists operate under a fallacious premise to begin with: the idea that if evolution is "wrong," then bible-literal "creation" MUST be right. That's not the case at all. There are thousands of "origin" ideas, from religions and philosophers and plain old regular people -- one doesn't "win" by default just because one of the others is wrong. The way we decide which, if any, of all those "origin" ideas has merit is by evidence...and the evidence is clear that evolution by natural selection has merit, and none of the others do.
- San MiguelLv 71 decade ago
Asking Christian creationists for their opinions gives them status that they don't deserve.
Debating with a creationist benefits only the creationist, because it acknowledges their absurd mythology.
@ Cadet Sergeant - The problem with your argument is that I could insist that we were created by a superior race of time-traveling celestial aliens (who then left us to our own devices, which explains why there is no such thing as "divine intervention") and you could no more disprove it than I could disprove the existence of your version of the "Creator." I don't have the science nor the empirical evidence to support my "belief" anymore than you do. So it's back to what it has always been and always will be: FAITH, i.e, belief WITHOUT evidence.
@ Abernathy the Dull - Here's a site that will blow to smithereens every absurd contention that you make (or plagiarized from someone else's) that creationism is supported by the Bible's Genesis and the "Word of God."
Btw, your avatar name is a good fit, since it describes most creationist "thinking" (the dullest tools in the shed).
- 1 decade ago
The Bible is the word of God, so it should be accurate when touching on the origins of the earth.
Here are some other falsifiable scientific predictions based on Genesis chapter 1:
1) The universe had a beginning and is not eternal (Gen 1:1).
We find: the universe had a beginning. This was not believed by atheists until the 1920's, when conclusive evidence came in showing the universe to not be static and eternal, but to be expanding.
2) The early earth would have been uninhabitable for advanced life. It would have been a toxic wasteland (Gen 1:2).
We find: elements poisonous to life (formed in their pure state in some star) were free in the environment until bacteria stripped them from the environment and deposited them as precipitates. In other words, if you went back in a time machine and tried to live on the early earth, you would die of poisoning. (If you weren't killed by the lack of oxygen, constant meterorites, or intense heat.)
3) The early earth was a water world without landmasses (Gen 1:2).
We find: just within the last 10 years scientists concluded that the early earth started out completely covered with water. Plate tectonics could not yet form stable landmasses.
4) Stable landmasses would have formed about halfway through the earth's lifespan (Gen 1:9).
We find: about halfway through the earth's present age, plate tectonics could form stable landmasses.
5) The early earth's atmosphere would be much denser than it is today, and it would have fully cleared, allowing celestial objects to be clearly seen sometime after the formation of stable landmasses (Gen 1:2, 14; Job 38:9).
We find: the earth started out in a dust cloud and the atmosphere was much thicker than it is today. I know of no scientific papers on the atmosphere completely clearing after the landmasses were formed, we must just wait and see. But the earth's atmosphere was probably similar to Venus's or Titan's in that they are permanently overcast.
6) Lifeforms should appear explosively, fully formed in the fossil record (Gen 1:11, 21, 24).
We find 50% or more of all known phyla appear at the very start of the Cambrian. The error bar is about 3 million years. So that is 3 million years at worst for all those phyla. The Avalon explosion prior to that has Edicaran specimens, unconnected the Cambrian specimens. There are several other mass extinction and mass speciation events in the fossil record.
7) Genesis chapter 1 shows a progression of complexity of lifeforms, from simple to complex. The fossil record should match such a progression.
Advanced lifeforms like humans are much more sensitive to their environments than are simpler forms of life. We find a progression of less complex to more complex lifeforms in the fossil record - forms that were perfectly suited to the environment of their time until they were able to convert that environment to be suited for more advanced forms of life (for example, see #2).
8) Mankind should appear explosively in the archeological record. Their behavior should be distinctly different from any previous ape-like creature, and exhibit 'image of God' qualities (Gen 1:27).
We find: modern human archeological sites explode on the scene and are culturally and technologically disconnected from any prior hominid sites.
- nancy joLv 51 decade ago
There is nothing scientific to support the creationist's view. It's a faith-based theology.
Here is something I would think scientists would find interesting however. I read on the Yahoo home page a few years back that science had discovered that stars emit a sound that is inaudible to the human ear. Not long after, I read a Psalm that says, "The stars sing unto God".
Subtle hint, maybe?
(sorry about the Bible quote, I had to use it to make my point)
- THOMASLv 41 decade ago
The evidence for the proof of God is the impossibility of the opposite. Without our God's sovereign superintendence of His creation there could be no science, ethics, logic or anything else but chaos. You cannot do science unless you first have uniformity of nature. You cannot evaluate science without universal and absolute rules of thinking. Without God you have no justification to expect what you do today can be expected to happen tomorrow.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They can't. I'm a Deist/Pantheist and I have a B.A. in anthropology. I admit that I have no proof of God. They don't understand attacking one subject doesn't give credence to their side.
if I took the Mayan Popol Vuh literally and attacked evolution, it doesn't make the Mayan popol Vuh the default position.