Can You PROVE Creationism?

[PantheistsRule]

Hey everybody!

So, I recently got into an argument with a bunch of Creationists about Evolution & Creationism. I offered scientific evidence for Evolution, they disputed it by quoting the Bible, I questioned Biblical inerrancy, they provided made-up facts about authors of different books, and so on…

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.
2. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.
3. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

 

[CWBetts]

Hey everybody!

So, I recently got into an argument with a bunch of Creationists about Evolution & Creationism. I offered scientific evidence for Evolution, they disputed it by quoting the Bible, I questioned Biblical inerrancy, they provided made-up facts about authors of different books, and so on…

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.
2. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.
3. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

I am just here to say I wont waste my time. Your ilk has been soundly rebutted time and time again by those of greater intellect than myself. The only evidence I have to offer is St. Thomas Aquinas and GK Chesterton. That should be enough.

 

[Steven_John]

Hi,
i am very keen on your thread. Most belivers would just say its a matter of faith. That does little to support an argumnet.

I dont have an answer for you but you may find this interesting but it does not really answer your question.

hebrew letters - the DNA of creation part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=dk_m5z0mKzo

It amazes me that such a complex anlysis can be done on such old writtings.

I really hope your thread starts some great discussion.

Stay well

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hey everybody!

So, I recently got into an argument with a bunch of Creationists about Evolution & Creationism. I offered scientific evidence for Evolution, they disputed it by quoting the Bible, I questioned Biblical inerrancy, they provided made-up facts about authors of different books, and so on…

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.
2. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.
3. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

To prove Evolution, you’d need a pretty thorough collection of fossils showing the transitional stages. Even when Evolutionists talk about human evolution, their starting point looks remarkably human. Where’s all the intermediate stages from the primordial soup up to that point?

To prove Creationism, the strongest evidence would be that the DNA chain is information based, and information is a trait of intelligence. Along with the way everthing just seems to hang together so well. A lack of sufficient transitional fossils indicates that there are flaws in evolution.

The main bugbear for Creationists is proof the earth / universe is young. There are a number of such indicators, eg. Earth’s magnetic decay (which I favour myself), but the chief problem is the expansion of the universe.

I suspect there is some factor as yet undiscovered which will give a much younger age to the universe than we currently think.

If the universe / earth is young, there is no option but to accept living things were designed and engineered. As for “Ex Nihilo”, from nothing, even the evolutionists ought to be able to accept that.

The following link indicates that the universe is a “sum zero energy” universe ie. it adds up to nothing, or it’s the two sides of nothing, like Yin and Yang, with gravity balancing everything else out.

astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

If this is the case, then why would God want to keep “nothing” going for billions of years, just for the sake of the human drama, which is what He’s really interested in, if Christianity is the Truth?

As far as I’m concerned, this universe is merely a stage prop for the human drama. I mean if you were God, would you give a species like the human race, with all its murders, wars, gulags, concentration camps, mass murders, racism, stupidity, wastefulness, a really solid universe, or would you set it up with something that looked solid while you worked out your real purpose. He’s already told us He’s going to wrap it up one day, and that it will disappear into nothingness. It came from nothing; it adds up to nothing and will disappear back into nothing. That’s simple logic.

Meanwhile He’s keeping the really solid universe, the spiritual one, for those show themselves to be prepared to do the right thing.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Creationism assumes the existince of some kind of creating deity–and not necessarily the Christian one; I can imagine a Hindu creationist scenario, or even a FSM one.

What you’re really asking is to prove the existence of God by the scientific method.

However God, by His nature, is impossible to quantify in the laboratory. He usually eludes such a procedure. He really hates being pinned down, you know.

One might as well attempt to scientifically “prove” a Beethoven symphony or a Rembrant painting or a Shakespeare sonnet.

We know they exist, but beyond this, science can say nothing except to talk about the frequently range or other acoustic data of the music, or similar information about a painting, or maybe the vocabulary frequency of the poem.

But can science “prove” how they move the heart and appeal to something other than mere intellect?

So it is with God. He speaks to us on a different level.

 

[Janet1983]

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.
2. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.
3. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

Well if you take a close look at creation science you will see that it is exactly that: scientific.
The material is far to vast to sum it up really quick, but there are books out there that go into immense detail…

The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
In the Beginning by Walt Brown

Both links are going to the books and they can be read online… Lee Strobel’s book is in Google books and you just need to turn the page… For Walt Browns book you’ll need to scroll down and turn the page or start directly here: Preface
Both authors approach the topic from a strictly scientific point of view. Lee Strobel even goes ahead and tells us the story of how he got there (though not all of the book can be found online)… he was trying to disprove creationism and ended up talking to quite a few scientists who showed him their evidence… as with all good science the end is open and looking at the evidence without a pre-planned theory can lead to more than one conclusion… in some cases the conclusion might however be clear and clearly pointing in one single direction…

 

[DavidMark]

Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant. ~Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150
…Regard all else beside God as transient, and count all things save Him, Who is the Object of all adoration, as utter nothingness. ~Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 194

**Every thing must needs have an origin and every building a builder. Verily, the Word of God is the Cause which hath preceded the contingent world – a world which is adorned with the splendours of the Ancient of Days, yet is being renewed and regenerated at all times. **~Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 141)
**…a creation which is infinite in its range and deathless in its duration. The wonders of His bounty can never cease, and the stream of His merciful grace can never be arrested. The process of His creation hath had no beginning, and can have no end. ** ~Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 61

When we contemplate this vast machinery of omnipresent power, perceive this illimitable space and its innumerable worlds, it will become evident to us that the lifetime of this infinite creation is more than six thousand years; nay, it is very, very ancient. Notwithstanding this, we read in Genesis in the Old Testament that the lifetime of creation is but six thousand years. This has an inner meaning and significance; it is not to be taken literally. ~‘Abdu’l-Bahá, PUP, p. 463

[Objects exist farther than 6000 LY. Plate tectonics shows that it required billions of years for the continents to separate and move apart. etc.]

**…life on this earth is very ancient. It is not one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, or one million or two million years old; it is very ancient, and the ancient records and traces are entirely obliterated. **(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 160)

Man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power. It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace…
Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law. ~‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 183

 

[Nine_Two]

The problem with any creationism vs. evolution debate I’ve ever encountered is that neither side actually understands either theory and instead utilizes their argument as an oportunity to mock their opponent, case in point the first post in this thread. I haven’t bothered to read beyond that because I don’t care. I believe God made creation, this can not be proven or disproven, I don’t particularly care how he did it.

 

[DeusVult09]

Hey everybody!

So, I recently got into an argument with a bunch of Creationists about Evolution & Creationism. I offered scientific evidence for Evolution, they disputed it by quoting the Bible, I questioned Biblical inerrancy, they provided made-up facts about authors of different books, and so on…

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.
2. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.
3. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

im catholic and personally i have no problem with evolution there is significant scientific evidence for it. Even the catholic church is becoming more open to it. I read of one church document where they went as far as to call creationism pseudo-science.

I think the problem with creationism is that fundamentalist evangelicals don’t realize what the creation stories in genesis are. Most scholars think they were originally hymns written during the Babylonian exile to reconnect with their lost roots.

And most scholars are pretty unanimous in the belief that Adam and eve were not actual people but metaphorical characters as Adam in Hebrew means mankind or dust and Eve means something like mother of creation. what is important is that it says that god was involved in the creation but this is not a historical account of it but how the ancient Israelites understood it. anyway that’s my take on it. there is nothing to prohibit christians from beleiving in theistic evolution.

 

[Newbie2]

Hey everybody!

So, I recently got into an argument with a bunch of Creationists about Evolution & Creationism. I offered scientific evidence for Evolution, they disputed it by quoting the Bible, I questioned Biblical inerrancy, they provided made-up facts about authors of different books, and so on…

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.
2. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.
3. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

“Your proof must have no major holes.” LOL I suppose that most credible posts will have “major holes” in the mind of the OP. Oh, and by the way, you have to prove God exists as well. Oh, yes, and those who have already tried “aren’t very bright”.

Let’s save everyone some time here and not feed the troll. The OP is not looking for any real answers rooted in faith or not, just looking to argue.

 

[ralphinal]

Both sides have major holes. For example, proove macro-evolution. Micro is easy enough. What caused the Big Bang?

I hold to the Catholic view: God created it in His way and science can explain it in their way without ruling out God.

 

[manualman]

This discussion is useless unless you define the two terms carefully. Otherwise everyone simply talks past each other.

Creationism usually refers to a strict, literal adherance to the bible accounts of creation. I wonder if you realize that the Catholic Church does NOT hold that this is necessarily true (7 literal days, etc)? You might be trolling the wrong forum…

Evolution is also a far too broad word. Nuts like Dawkins seem to define it as the natural process in which life forms have progressed from simple to complex in a manner that demonstrates randomness and disproves any creative guiding force. This is nothing other than religious fundamentalism of a DIFFERENT sort (the atheist variety).

So if those are your definitions, then you’re presenting a false dilemma. It’s not either/or, BOTH are wrong.

It is entirely compatible with catholicism to presume that what God created were the natural principles which shaped the development of life. That is no less a creation than the bible stories are, but it does not excuse the scientist from finding causes and learning processes.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Hey everybody!

So, I recently got into an argument with a bunch of Creationists about Evolution & Creationism. I offered scientific evidence for Evolution, they disputed it by quoting the Bible, I questioned Biblical inerrancy, they provided made-up facts about authors of different books, and so on…

They weren’t very bright. I’d like to see if someone here could prove Creationism. Here are some ground rules:

1. While your proof does not need to be compatible with evolution (macro or micro), it must be compatible with proven science.

You must first define the origin of life since evolution does not address that and without that scientifically proven origin you cannot begin to explain your evolutionary theory scientifically.

1. Your proof must have no major holes. It cannot simply be “you can’t disprove Creationism/God, can you?” Well, you can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the invisible magic pink Hello Kitty Doll I just made up that makes bread I put in the toaster turn to toast either.

Evolution has major holes so you can’t expect to define the argument in a way you cannot support yourself.

1. Your proof must offer some sort of proof for (a) God as well. Creationism by nature suggests a Creator.

You give your own proof to what you reject.

If I missed anything, I’ll correct it as the posts come in. After this thread gets a few, I’ll offer my theory that I believe DISPROVES Creationism, and maybe even a deistic God. Of course, that’ll just be my opinion

Good luck!

Good luck with that origin of life.

 

[crazzeto]

can you prove evolution? and most specifically, can you prove survival of the fittest? Contrary to popular beleif not all us Christian’s are creationists, personally I’m open to whatever science says, of course understanding the God is the auther of both scientific and theological truth so the two can and never will contradict.

But beleive it or not, due to how Genisis is written, there is actually no requirement to beleive in a literal 6 day creation which is what people usually mean by “creationism”. It could have taken longer, God might have made us from the dust of the earth, or those words might have been the closest understanding the author of Genesis had for describing what was inspiring him.

 

[PantheistsRule]

Hey! Glad to see posts here! They all seem very interesting so far.

So let’s clarify some stuff before this moves on, and please allow me to correct a few posts. Hope I don’t sound rude

By major holes I meant MAJOR holes. If there’s a little hole in it than might be fixed over time, that’s good enough for me.

To the first guy, good, don’t waste your time. If you feel this is a waste, don’t bother.

To the third guy, the Universe’s age is proven by the amount of time it takes for the earliest light to reach us. The Hubble Telescope was one of our greatest tools in aging the Universe. And why, if there was a God, and he was not evil, would he allow for so much evil on Earth? He must be a cruel God then, if he does exist. Why would you follow a cruel God? No need to get angry, just trying to make you think a bit. I’m sure you have a good reason to believe in God.

To the fourth guy, I kind of wanted NOT to ask people to prove God, but with proving Creationism, that’s unavoidable. God by nature is impossible to prove with science, you right. He is invisible, by definition. Unable to be observed. In my opinion, faith is worthless without evidence. I know science has holes, but it has proof backing it. Faith by definition has a foundation in a lack of facts on a topic.

To the fifth guy, I’ll look into that stuff

To the seventh guy, good for you. I have no problem with your stance on the issue. I understand it.

To the eighth guy, same. I wish more people could realize that. God could have created the Big Bang, or guided evolution. I can’t disprove it. I just feel it is a bit ridiculous and choose not to believe it.

To the ninth, I promise to be open-minded. I won’t get on every little hole in your theory. I don’t require overwhelming evidence for God, just something that might possibly prove him.

To the tenth guy, I can proove macro-evolution by science up until the Big Bang, where the one major remaining question posed is what caused it. I’m no cosmologist, but I’m well read, and from observations of black holes, several scientificly backed theories about singularities have been proposed. I’d get into it, but it’d take a VERY long time. Basically, at sigularities (as in black holes) the laws of physics are not applicable, and dimensions are warped to the point of nearly nonexistence, if not total nonexistence. The Big Bang theory involves everything in the universe being such an unexposed sigularity. Since there are no physics and there is no dimension of time, who knows what might happen? Just a theory, I could be wrong.

So, yeah. Please keep posting! I’m not so interested in correcting you as in establishing alternative scientifically backed theories to you to ponder on. If you are a creationist

And please don’t feel as if I am disrespecting you. I may not believe in the dogma, but I do believe in the message of Jesus, Buddha, etc. I follow their philosophies, read the Bible, the Tao-te-Ching. I just look at it differently.

 

[ralphinal]

I think I was the tenth guy. IF so, please show me the macro-evolution history information, with no gaps or holes, for humans, horses, chickens, and whales

 

[Volus]

can you prove evolution? and most specifically, can you prove survival of the fittest?

Evolution has already been proven (to the point of almost being without a doubt), which is far more than I can say for creationism. That however, is not my point.

What do you mean “prove” survival of the fittest? What is there to prove? It’s really rather straightforward and logical. Species that are stronger (or more “fit”) than other species are more likely to survive.

A wolf with better sight and hearing will survive longer in the wild than a wolf with lesser sight and hearing. The wolf with better sight and hearing will live to produce, and the wolf with lesser sight and hearing will not. It doesn’t take any complex thought or blind belief to see the logic in this.

If I’m wrong, please, correct me. I (honestly) have always wanted to know how someone could refute this. I don’t want to be disrespectful-there is nothing productive in that.

 

[ralphinal]

Evolution has already been proven (to the point of almost being without a doubt), which is far more than I can say for creationism. That however, is not my point.

What do you mean “prove” survival of the fittest? What is there to prove? It’s really rather straightforward and logical. Species that are stronger (or more “fit”) than other species are more likely to survive.

A wolf with better sight and hearing will survive longer in the wild than a wolf with lesser sight and hearing. The wolf with better sight and hearing will live to produce, and the wolf with lesser sight and hearing will not. It doesn’t take any complex thought or blind belief to see the logic in this.

If I’m wrong, please, correct me. I (honestly) have always wanted to know how someone could refute this. I don’t want to be disrespectful-there is nothing productive in that.

Survival of the fittest is the easiest to prove. In fact, it is the only one that proves itself in all species on earth besides modern man

 

[BryanS1976]

I ahven’t read all of the posts, so perhaps someone has already suggested this to you as something to read, but I would like to humbly submit “The Science of G-d” (spelled with the “o” of course) by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who is also a brilliant lecturer. Below is a video clip in which Doctor Schroeder describes some of his work.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7143844201875642538#

I hope you enjoy it.

G-d bless,

Bryan

 

[Volus]

Survival of the fittest is the easiest to prove. In fact, it is the only one that proves itself in all species on earth besides modern man

Yes modern man has removed the survival of the fittest thing, with medical care, etc. Theoretically, this is a bad thing. It would be better if we let the genetically inferior of us just die on their own. That would, of course, be highly unethical and morally unthinkable. We’d rather leave this whole “master race” thing in the past, with Hitler and his kind.