Scientific Evidence For Creation!!! Wow!

Hi ,

You may appreciate these critiques of young-earth theories from the old-earth creationists at Reasons.org

Rapid Post-Flood Speciation: A Critique of the Young-Earth Model I'll post info from the link but I'd recommend giving it a proper read... let me know what you think. Keep in mind that these folks do believe that the Bible is the word of God and that there was a catastrauphic (though local) flood and further they believe that there was indeed an ark... just not the 'Sunday school' version most people are aware of.

Creationists disagree on the extent of Noah’s Flood. The main reason young-earth creationists insist the Flood was a global event is their model demands it. The Flood is the mechanism they use to explain the earth’s geological features. Rather than forming over millions or billions of years as most scientists believe, young-earth creationists maintain the earth’s features are the result of global floodwaters and processes that accompanied the Flood, like erosion, volcanism and tectonics.1 They also attribute the majority of the fossil record, virtually everything below the Tertiary strata, to the Flood.2

[..snip...]

The young-earth model would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern cities. Though the ark was seaworthy for a local flood, the G-forces produced by such cataclysmic movements would have destroyed it and its occupants.18


If true, the amount of post-Flood speciation must have been staggering. Young-earth creationists estimate Noah took 8,000 to 20,000 species on the ark. They also say a significant number of these species went extinct shortly after the Flood.4,5 Based on their dating method, approximately 7 million species have existed since the Flood–about 2 million have gone extinct and 5 million are alive today. Therefore, nearly 7 million species must have arisen from far less than 20,000 species in a time frame of a few hundred years.6

[...snip...]

Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires.15 There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood–the earth simply could not support that many organisms.16,17

[...snip...]

Equally important, the Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the post-Flood world was unstable [...] Instead, the Bible tells us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a vineyard–impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth creationists suggest.21

[...snip...]

Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been carefully thought through.65 While the young-earth speciation model is not evolution in the molecules-to-man meaning of the term, it is still evolution. Evolution also refers to limited common descent–the idea that groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor–and to the mechanisms responsible for change, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.66 In reality, young-earth creationists appeal to the same processes evolutionists do, except mutation. The only significant difference is the timeframe–they propose speciation rates far faster than even the most optimistic Darwinist would dare to suggest.67

[...snip...]

Many creationists have and do see the fixity of the species as a critical element of the biblical doctrine of special creation. The problem is the young-earth speciation model is not derived from the evidence–either biblical or scientific–it is driven by the necessities of the global-Flood model. Thus, while young-earth creationists want us to accept the global-Flood view as the authentic Biblical account of what happened, much of their model is the product of conjecture and extra-biblical imagination.

.... The fixity of species is what separates special creation from theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution. Before we abandon this principle, let’s make sure the facts warrant it.

I'd also recommend this link from Godandscience.org: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered the all of planet earth.2 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible usually refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."3 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

[...snip...]

As can be seen above, in the majority of instances kol erets does not refer to the entire planet earth. In fact, of the 205 instance of kol erets in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times,8 and even some of those are questionable. About half of those instance occur in the books of Psalms and Isaiah.

[...snip...]

There is a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is tebel (Strong's H8398), which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth.

[...snip...]

Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to local geography. All the place names mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain. Therefore, all the instances of the word erets can and should be translated "land," instead of "earth," since it all refers to local geography. There is no reason to think that the flood account is any different from the rest of the Genesis account through chapter 11.

[...snip...]

It is no wonder that people who read the English translation of the Bible "literally" come to the conclusion that the flood must have been global. However, it is apparent that our English "translations" of the Genesis flood text are more than just "translations," but actually interpretations (and probably incorrect ones at that).

That's probably more quoting than I'm supposed to do, but give 'em a read, when you have the time, and let me know what you think. BTW I realize you think Nygdan is just nit-picking re: Baugh's credentials but if you take a look into his (and other YECists like Hovind) you'll see that these men didn't earn a PhD in any scientific discipline... the fact that their dishonest about their credentials and insist on carring the title "Dr." is enough for me, at the very least, to be skeptical of anything they have to say about science... or Scipture for that matter.

Not trying to tell you what to believe, and as a creationist myself i probably have more respect and understanding of your world-view than most. Heck even as an old-earther, who probably disagrees with 90%+ of YEC arguments, I don't get anymore love then you and most folks don't understand the distinction between the two.

Nygdan's ripped me a new one once or twice too. He's knows his stuff re: evolution, geology, history etc though, and is one of the few ATS critics who can attack an argument without the ad hominums and ridiculous straw man arguments that frequent these discussions. Ok that's enough brown-nosin' but guys like him are who you want critiquing your ideas/posts, if only to serve to help you strengthen your arguments, and better understand the issues.

Anywho... I'd recommend staying away from these creationists who've, apparently, been dishonest about their educational backgrounds in an effort to prop-up their arguments... or at least I don't know why else they would do it. This issue (degrees from "diploma mills") isn't exclusive to creationism, if memory serves, a bunch of teachers just got busted for using false credentials to obtain better positions and pay scale.

On a side note: Sen. Mark Schoesler (Republican whip) has a bill -2006 Senate Bill 6487 (Prohibiting false academic credentials) Not sure what, if any, effect it will have... but the bill passed (98-0) and now, "Both issuing and knowingly using a false academic credential is a class C felony." Can just picture Hovind and Baugh on the run... the new Bonnie and Clyde... oooh or the new Thelma and Louise (makes the whole Grand Canyon issue come together) lol.

Regards and God bless,
-Rren

With all due respect why would anyone want to prove creationism?

Creationism is a FAITH. It relies on BELIEF of the SUPERNATURAL. In a being that is so powerful he can make the world in six days.

So what is the point in trying to prove a faith in something that is undefined? The form that God takes has never been defined, nor has it been explained where God came from, who created God, where he got his energy. If he made man in his image, has he got a long white beard? Is he black or white? How big is he? How does he do what he does? Is he bigger than the universe, or 5'6" tall?

So how can throwing out a bunch of questionable statistics and hypothesis about anything prove creationism when nobody can even agree on what form God takes?

It is like trying to prove a man built a house, when we do not even know who the man is, where he is, how he did it, or where he came from. It is a matter of FAITH and trying to prove if the house is 20 years old or 200 years old will never change that.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I have yet to figure out how anyone can really assert that creationism and evolution are at odds with one another at all. It really doesn't matter if evolution is true in my opinion. Am I supposed to deduct that just because we originated from slime in the bottom of a stream that there is no creator?
[edit on 5-4-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Here is where creation and evoultion are at odds. First the slim pit theory is 100% against the six days of creation and when things were created. The slime pit says everything evolved out of that slime, which basically states that everything was created at once. Creation states animals were created before man. Also it said God hand crafted man from the dust of the earth, not letting us evolve from a slim pit.

Second the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve disobeyed God which brought sin into the world, and punishment for that sin is death. Death did not exist before that point. Evolution goes on the principle of survival of the fittest from the very beginning, which would mean animals were dying before the garden of Eden.

If death existed before the garden, then you might as well throw the Bible away. Then why did we need a saviour to die in our place?

www.answersingenesis.org... 63.asp

Note that if there was death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam sinned, this would make nonsense of the atonement message and would also make nonsense of Hebrews 9:22 and Genesis 3:21. One can't have death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before the first death and bloodshed, which is the whole basis of the atonement.

This is an interesting article of why order of events matter:
www.answersingenesis.org...

I'm not here to argue the matter, only to answer why evoultion and creation are at odds with each other. What I wrote is only the tip of the iceburg on the matter.

Originally posted by zenlover28

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day...

Yes, it so very clearly does. What it doesn't clearly explain is just how Noah got all the way around to Australia, picked up some kangaroos, wallabies and platypii, stepped on over to New Zealand, grabbed a kiwi bird or two (well, two), went back to the middle east, got in his ark, floated around until the mighty Ararat resurfaced, crashed into it, and then, erm, I think he mailed the animals back to the antipodes.

Presumably the aforementioned deity upon whose orders said ark was constructed just folded space to get them back to their point-of-return.

It sure as gehenna doesn't mention it in the big book though, does it?

Global Flood... one boat... morons.

I'm sorry I can't stop laughing...

Going to a creationist propaganda site and taking their pre canned "evidence" then calling it proof would be like going to Atheism.org and posting a thread titled "shocking proof that there is no GOD".

If 3 out of 4 biologists and anthropoligists agreed that creationism had a chance I'd start wondering. But as it is it's just sad how people will cling to an idea in a book that's metaphorical to start with.

Originally posted by Clipper
With all due respect why would anyone want to prove creationism?

Creationism is a FAITH. It relies on BELIEF of the SUPERNATURAL. In a being that is so powerful he can make the world in six days.

So what is the point in trying to prove a faith in something that is undefined?

Yet evolutionists have us believe there is nothig wrong with their theory when there are big gaping holes in it. Micro evoultion does exist within species. Ken Ham even explanes it and how it fits into God's design. The major problem with evolution is with macro evolution of one species changing into a completely different species. There is no proof or evidence anywhere of any such thing happening. There is no proof of a missing link. Evolutionists need to search even harder to find their "missing link" before pushing their "theories" as fact.

Not to mention the founder Charles Darwin was a bigot, and his evolutionary theory spread racisim throughout the entire globe. Hitler was a big fan of His book the orgin of species. Do you know the full title of the Book? According to wikiepedia it is:

en.wikipedia.org...

First published on November 24, 1859, The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) by British naturalist Charles Darwin

Yes the title says favored races. Where do you think Hitler got the idea that the german people were superior and the Jews were a bunch of animals on the envornmental chain of life only good for extention? I will never believe in a theory who's founder seethed with hate, and spread that hate to others in his works.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Yes the title says favored races. Where do you think Hitler got the idea that the german people were superior and the Jews were a bunch of animals on the envornmental chain of life only good for extention? I will never believe in a theory who's founder seethed with hate, and spread that hate to others in his works.

Mystery_lady... ummmm would suggest you read the Origin. The term races in this title doesn't refer to 'races' like caucasion, black, hispanic, or asian (sorry if I used an UnPC description for any race). Races in this context refer to strains or species... not 'races' like we're used to thinking of them.

In fact, the Origin doesn't even really deal with evolution of man specifically, which is why Darwin publised The Descent of Man after the Origin.

Whether or not Hitler was a Darwinist isn't relevant. Eric Harris was wearing a shirt that said "Natural Selection" on 4/20, but this isn't relevant either. Just like it's not relevant that the KKK stands behind the facade of Christianity while espousing their hate filled vitriol. It doesn't speak to the validity of the theory.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Yet evolutionists have us believe there is nothig wrong with their theory when there are big gaping holes in it.

True enough... nothing prevents morons from theorising except overwhelming force of arms.

Let me put it to you this way.

*flips table on right side, nails plank to it*

Ok.

1. Group A has a theory (Theory A). Turns out A is a stupid theory, but through the application of overwhelming force, people tended not to question it too much.

2. Things got busy. Group B came up with a theory during a lull. Theory B is largely based on the glaring inconsistencies of Theory A with Reality (mongrel thing).

3. Group A get real mad, apply force. Lots of, repeatedly.

4. Group B has the terrible habit of making or predicting things based on their theory, which Group A doesnt like a lot. This whole 'inventing things' business really gets up the nose of Group A, and Group B likes this very much indeed.

5. Group B may now apply overwhelming force due to invented things and weight of converts.

6. A & B engage in cold war.

7. Theory B, due to its inventing and predicting behaviour is deemed not only better than A, but 100% correct and completely lacking in flaws of any kind. Just like the base identity residing at the core of Theory A.

8. New Thinking Systems (kids and other people seeking ideas to call their own) usually select the pattern of their parents. Some fraction will choose the one they are aesthetically drawn to.

[/end plank]

What you see here are far too many words, all intended to say, 'just because you hear two groups of morons talking, doesnt mean you have to side with either of them. Get a shotgun, sort it out.'

I think that's what it meant.

Yet evolutionists have us believe there is nothig wrong with their theory when there are big gaping holes in it.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds when there are plenty of gaping holes in creationism?

The last time I checked the only theory in evolution is how the process itself takes place. The fact of the matter is that life evolves. Exactly how that happens is yet to be determined, but it happens. That is a fact.

Edited to add: Didn't mean to quote you as an external source.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by zenlover28]

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady

Originally posted by Clipper
With all due respect why would anyone want to prove creationism?

Creationism is a FAITH. It relies on BELIEF of the SUPERNATURAL. In a being that is so powerful he can make the world in six days.

So what is the point in trying to prove a faith in something that is undefined?

Yet evolutionists have us believe there is nothig wrong with their theory when there are big gaping holes in it. Micro evoultion does exist within species. Ken Ham even explanes it and how it fits into God's design. The major problem with evolution is with macro evolution of one species changing into a completely different species. There is no proof or evidence anywhere of any such thing happening. There is no proof of a missing link. Evolutionists need to search even harder to find their "missing link" before pushing their "theories" as fact.

Not to mention the founder Charles Darwin was a bigot, and his evolutionary theory spread racisim throughout the entire globe. Hitler was a big fan of His book the orgin of species. Do you know the full title of the Book? According to wikiepedia it is:

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think Darwin was referring to "favored races" in a racist sense. He is talking about species that have adapted to harmonise with their environments, giving them an advantage.

Science does not offer all the answers, nor does it purport to.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is all around us and that the fittest survive is so observable and logical as to be obvious.

The adaptation of species to environments is clear to see from creatures that blend in colour to their habitat to be hidden from predators, to animals that are insulated from extreme cold. It is a clear pattern to observe that animals have adapted and evolved to survive and the fossil record shows a logical progression of species through time.

Missing links or transitional fossils are rare but they do exist. Due to the nature of transition, likely triggered by sudden environmental change, it would be expected that species would have a long period of stability before changing rapidly. Therefore, it is logical that the fossil record of transition is going to be patchy.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Yet evolutionists have us believe there is nothig wrong with their theory when there are big gaping holes in it. Micro evoultion does exist within species. Ken Ham even explanes it and how it fits into God's design. The major problem with evolution is with macro evolution of one species changing into a completely different species. There is no proof or evidence anywhere of any such thing happening. There is no proof of a missing link. Evolutionists need to search even harder to find their "missing link" before pushing their "theories" as fact.

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory.

So I guess you are depending on the biblical concept of 'kinds'. What is a 'kind' and how is this a barrier to evolution?

Which 'missing link' are you looking for? There are transitionary fossils of various forms.

On the human evolution issue, I'm sure if we had the birth certificates of every organism in your lineage from your ape-like ancestor to yourself, you would still not be convinced.

How about this new find...

Terrestrial fishy-like thing - The fishapod

A 'missing link' for fish to land species?

[edit on 5-4-2006 by melatonin]

A philistine can make a website, but they cannnot grasp science.

The fishapod is on BBC News 2nite. I wonder if I could trace my mitochondrial DNA back to the "Fishwalker" tribe? BTW Have you seen the Tribal DNA cards yet? (NL, and USA - used for proof of indigenousness) Real mark of the beast stuff.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
Yet evolutionists have us believe there is nothig wrong with their theory

Since when?

Micro evoultion does exist within species.

? Even hard core creationists agree that microevolution, change within species, occurs.

Ken Ham even explanes it and how it fits into God's design.

That's about as relevant as what the hare krishnas think about how it all fits into Krishna's design.

There is no proof or evidence anywhere of any such thing happening.

Speciation, or macroevolution as you are calling it, has been observed in the lab and in the wild.

There is no proof of a missing link.

Between man and ape? There are many fossils that fit the definition.

Evolutionists need to search even harder to find their "missing link" before pushing their "theories" as fact.

Evolution by a mechanism of natural selection is a theory, not a fact, anyone telling you otherwise is incorrect.

Not to mention the founder Charles Darwin was a bigot

Irrelevant if true. There are lots of preachers that are rapists and murders. Does that mean that jesus was rapist?

, and his evolutionary theory spread racisim throughout the entire globe.

Preposterous, as if the world was not racist, and then because of darwinian theory all of a sudden was. People were using the bible long before Darwin and long after him to promote racism.

Hitler was a big fan of His book the orgin of species.

Hitler was also a christian and beleived in The Creator.

Yes the title says favored races.

A race, in biology, is merely another subdivision of animals. Species, kinds, races. If it had said 'kinds' would that mean that jesus was a nazi?

Where do you think Hitler got the idea that the german people were superior

Are you kidding? Hitler didn't need darwin to become an anti-semite.

I will never believe in a theory who's founder seethed with hate, and spread that hate to others in his works.

You have been mis-informed as to the facts through disgusting propaganda, by people who didn't have a problem throwing racist charges around to suit their needs.

The bible has evolved too. People from the church wrote and copied the bible thru the last 2000 years. This has caused slight changes to it. Just look at translating between languages. If the bible was creationist (intelligent design) it would still be written in Hebrew.

Another theory. Why don't people that believe in intelligent design, never think that the intelligent design god wanted is evolution.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by sbob]

ok, first, sorry if I repeat anybody but I just have to get this off my chest. ok well there will never be any scientific evidence for creation as it is not science, it is religion. religion = faith. Creation is a myth just like every religion has its own creation myth.Real science consists of theorys that can be proven or disproven. No matter how much evidence we give these creationists they will always have "proof" becouse faith cannot be dissproven.
Also, it seems to me that all the "scientific evidence" I have seen to support creationism is on various christian websites and never any non-partison(i think thats the word for it) site, like discovery or CNN. If this really was "proof", I would expect to see it all over the news, maybe a special on the discovery channel or national geographic.
Evolution is a fact. evolution of man and natural selection are the theorys.
Also, creationism is based on the christian bible and the christian god right? What makes your teachings correct? what puts your religion above others? this creation myth seems just as credible: www.meta-religion.com...

So when you creationists can prove to the world that creation is not just a myth then stop comparing it to real science. Untill then we should stop arguing creationism vs. evolution, but debating Evolution vs. Evolution

Its not that I dont think it can't exist, it's just it should not be argued against science untill it is proven to be science.

If the christian god is real i hope this post is blasphemous(sp?) enough to get him angry so he'll smite me and prove his existance, once and for all. C'mon, God, Show me what you got.


[edit on 5-4-2006 by edwardteach]

[edit on 5-4-2006 by edwardteach]

Originally posted by the_sentinal
yes but why can't science prove there is god... my faith is not weak and i'm not using science to back up my belief... i just think that this makes alot of sense alot more than evolution does

You can't even define "God," much less prove that such a thing exists. Science is generally a way to test various notions or hunches about relationships between two things that are pretty well-defined. What are you going to test, when it comes to proving there's a "God?" What are you even talking about? An old Grandpa who lives in the sky? A superdude with a long white beard and robe who looks suspiciously like Zeus? Hey, a lot of people say "God is Love." Can you prove that "Love" created the dinosaurs? It just don't make no sense.

I didn't go to the site but I read comments about it in here. There is no need to visit a site like this any more than there is a need to visit a site explaining why Mickey Mouse was a real person.
It amazes me that modern people with the opportunity for an education discuss whether Noah's Ark is or was found. What about the discussion as to whether Noah's Ark is anything more than a plagerized story as WOLF points out. We even know where the story comes from and when you know the origin of a thing the rest of the poppycock should fall away.
There was NO ARK. There was NO NOAH. There was NO WORLD WIDE FLOOD. These stories are not even qualified as allegory as they teach nothing but simple minded assumptions.
There is also not one shread of evidence that a character named Jesus ever existed. Jesus is almost certainly a construct of Saul needed for his revised Judaism.
Read Wolf and then read actual scholarship and leave the fake scholarship for thumpers. They need the crutch but being deluses by another is bad enough but the man which deludes himself is a sorry sap indeed.
sayswho (skep by any other name)

Originally posted by the_sentinal


why does this thread seem to make people angry???

Probably because its an attempt to sneak a religious belief in disguised as a scientific theory. Doing a whois on that site is owned by Dr. Baugh and googling his name he is a host on a Christian Broadcast network show. Its just a poor attempt at re-packaging another failed attempt at pushing creationism trying to pass it off as scientific theory.

I believe - stress believe - that some "thing"; a technology beyond my comprehension created the conditions whereby "is" could occur and unfold into a future - pardon me if I call it/she/he God for lack of a more precise term.
I also believe - and there is seemingly evidence to support this - that evolution has occurred in ever sophisticating organic systems as the future progressed.
Seems vocal advocates of both sides do believe in their positions dearly.
I'm not sure a rational and definitive case can be made by either... so I'll believe both.