Creationism Challenge

[Heath Winchester]

I am a long time researcher of the both Evolution and Creation theories. None are proven as of yet. I did this in one post but I've decided to come to this forum with the same challenge.

I want every person here who is willing to visit this site.

http://www.icr.org/

That's the "Institute for Creation Research." Basically, they're a legit place that is very well funded and known who use scientific explanation to explain God and Creation. Let me tell you, some of their stuff is not easily refuted. It's just an interesting place to visit if you are at all a person who likes knowing both sides before you make a blind hasty conclusion. I thought putting it in this forum would be great as I'm sure many of you are Evolutionist. I myself am not a Creationist but I am for the Creation theory being researched and talked about and it's due to these guys. After all, it's just another theory just like Evolution.

[Spectre557]

I've had a brief look at some of the articles on that site, and I must say I'm not that impressed. I remain a sceptic... As far as I can see many their theories are already based on spiritual/religious belief in the first place, and an argument is constructed around the huge assumptions that causes. The evidence they do include (which is sometimes rather lacking) is at best vague and open to personal interpretation.

So once again... The usual.

No proof, lots of assumptions and suspicions, this has religion written all over it for me.

That's just my first impression from looking at some of the theories that've been posted, but I'll look in more depth when I get the time. Could anyone point me to a more solidly-based creationism theory on this site? Only there's so much material and so little time, I'd like to see what interests you.

[Heath Winchester]

Ha! I knew you'd read this.

http://www.icr.org/first-law/

Try that one. I know a lot of their shit has to do with Scripture (which is weak proof for anything) but not all of it. Though I must admit, their old site was 10 times betters. And so is their magazine. From looking through it more thoroughly a lot of it doesn't impress me as much as their magazine does. I'll research some more when I get some time. This challenge will not be wasted! You do have to look a bit though.

And remember I am not a Creationist so I can't be biased against Evolution. I am in no way trying to convert anybody. Just something to discuss.

[Spectre557]

http://www.icr.org/first-law/

This makes a reasonable argument, seems like it's going somewhere... then it just abruptly concludes the same thing Thomas Aquinas did hundreds of years ago; If there's one thing that causes other things to happen, then that thing must be a sentient, all-loving, all-knowing, human-like being. Or god. Poor reasoning.

And remember I am not a Creationist so I can't be biased against Evolution. I am in no way trying to convert anybody. Just something to discuss.

Of course you're not, I never meant to insinuate that

It's an interesting point of debate.

[AtlasDark]

Most of what we assume to know in the scientific field is comprised of theories, however - this would signify that we still lack sufficient knowledge to conclude that our own speculation about creationism or any "world-spawning" have any basis.

On the counter-edge: We have discovered things that would blow others' minds, and science has proved that though something may not be perceived by our senses, it still exists - we look for the effects of these, though I feel that we will never gain a definite answer unless we were to harness resurrection and simply ask the recently deceased, though this is a part of a field which we cannot begin to fathom.

[Possumdude0]

Are they young or old Earth creationists? Or do they give support towards both views?

I've never heard of a good Biblical reason for the belief in a young Earth. I don't know where the number 6,000 years comes from.

However, the only Biblical argument for old Earth creation that I've heard requires not taking the word "day" literally in the Genesis creation account. I'm not sure if I'm a Biblical literalist or not, but it's kind of hard to follow this logic when the people I heard it from take the Bible literally in arbitrary places that support their views.

Science seems to be convinced that the universe is about 12-14 billion years old, and I'm not very inclined to argue that point, especially considering I've never heard any Biblical support for a young Earth.

I'm just confused about how they arrived at the number 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.

[Heath Winchester]

Well here's an interesting article on young earth creationism.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

By the way, they do not support both views.

[fiftysixer]

Heath, you say you're not a creationist but you're posting a bunch of links that promote creationism. Just wondering, what DO you personally believe about creationism/evolution?

[Heath Winchester]

I'm posting links more or less because people have to know the opposition to defend oneself against it.

I'm not a huge fan of either theory. I can't accept any sort of religious texts as a legit way of describing the beginning of our world. And yet, Evolution has holes and is in my opinion isn't enough to describe the complexities of the Universe and the human body. I do however not deny the possibility of something bigger than us out there.

[almightybob]

After all, it's just another theory just like Evolution.

No no no no no. There is a world of difference between a solid, scientific, peer-reviewed Theory (highest accolade any concept can achieve in science), and so-called "creation science" theory (more like the general use of the word, i.e. guess).

The Theory of Evolution explains all the current evidence we have - and if some evidence were to come up which is unexplainable by the current theory, it must be modified or discarded. That is how science works.

"Creation science" generally involves picking something we don't fully understand (e.g. what triggered the Big Bang), and then saying "but isn't the simplest explanation that God did it?". That or saying "but you can't prove it wasn't God, can you? AHA!".


Evolution is a fact. It has been observed to take place, for example, in fruit flies under laboratory conditions. Creationists will say "Ah, but that's micro-evolution. Macro-evolution has never been observed". They fail to understand that science does not differentiate between the two, and that macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution.

Abiogenesis (creation of life from non-life) has also been observed under specific laboratory conditions. In the Miller-Urey experiment, amino acids (the building blocks of life) were formed from inorganic chemicals using purely natural means.

I don't know where the number 6,000 years comes from.
[...]
I'm just confused about how they arrived at the number 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.

What they did was count backwards using the incredibly boring chapters of lineage in the Bible which go "And X beget Y, beget Z, beget...". However, they also assume that most, if not all, of these people lived at least a hundred years, and some many more (eg Noah supposedly lived to be over 900 years old). They make these assumptions because - you guessed it - the Bible says so.