Creationism cannot be true

Edit: Since some people are unclear what kind of Creationism I'm speaking about. I am talking about the Christian creation account. The reason for this is because the believers of that are the primary ones who constantly attack Evolution. I thought this would have been clear based on the OP, but I guess I was wrong. The term Creationism describes the Christian account as well. By no means am I trying to refute that the universe was created. Just the biblical account of it.

Time and again I see Creationists create threads trying to debunk Evolution and that Evolution takes more faith to believe in than Creationism. Well I decided all is fair and if Creationism really does take less faith than Evolution then it should be fair game to be analyzed for veracity. Creationists claim that Creationism is a valid theory or something. Therefore Creationists, instead of attacking Evolution, defend your "theory" like we are always forced to do about Evolution.

First we start out with proof. In the Social Sciences sources must be triangulated to help verify their veracity.

In the social sciences, triangulation is often used to indicate that two (or more) methods are used in a study in order to check the results. "The concept of triangulation is borrowed from navigational and land surveying techniques that determine a single point in space with the convergence of measurements taken from two other distinct points."[1] The idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result.

Triangulation is a powerful technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or more sources. In particular, it refers to the application and combination of several research methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon.[2]

Ok so let's look for the proof of Creationism. Well the only account of how it happened is in the bible. The account is described in Genesis 1 and 2 Creation account (click on the arrow at the bottom of the screen to get to the next chapter of Genesis). So we have this story (albeit a very short story that doesn't give much to description). So where is the rest of the proof for this account? Also since the account is so short, we cannot be sure if this is meant to be taken literally or figuratively (old earth vs. young earth). Compared to this Evolution has so much documented proof for it. Here is just five of them.

Now to verify this account, scientists would need to decide on which is true, young earth or old earth. For old earth, you could easily fit modern science like evolution and the abiogenesis hypothesis as the how; though you'd need to look at the world with confirmation bias to have the sciences match up with this account. For the young earth, it is a little harder. We'd need actual physical proof that God poofed all of life onto the planet simultaneously. This proof doesn't exist, heck we cannot even prove God exists let alone life suddenly appearing on the planet at the same time. In fact all evidence suggests that life developed over a period of time, whether that is through Evolution or not isn't part of this thread so I won't mention it. Ok, so strike one against Creationism is that the proof is desperately lacking.

But proof isn't the only problem with this account. There is the story itself that is flawed. In the first chapter of Genesis, God makes all of life on the planet then creates man and woman. In the second chapter, God creates man first, then the animals, then woman.

The two contradictory creation accounts.

These are two blatant contradictions within the story. I'd say that it is within the first few chapters, but the story is so short that those two chapters are pretty much the entirety of it. You would think if the Bible is the divine word of God that God would be able to describe to man a correct version of events and being that the story is so short, He should be able to remember the order of events that HE, Himself did to create everything.

Third, we speak about the bible itself. The thing going for the bible is that it is supposedly the divine words of God. Of course the only proof of this being true is also within the bible. This is a circular reasoning fallacy, therefore this claim cannot be taken at face value. Also keep in mind that no matter if the bible is the divine word of God or whatever, it was most definitely written by men. Men are not infallible, and the part of the bible that the Creation account shows up was passed down through the generations orally for a LONG time before being written down. A simple game of telephone shows that a simple sentence cannot survive intact being passed from person to person in just one room, let alone telling it to their kids and them retelling it to their kids and so on. Wouldn't it therefore be HIGHLY likely that the account that is described in the bible is embellished or certain details left out? This could certainly explain why there are two blatant contradictions in the story.

So that is three strikes against the Creation account, and so as to not Gish Gallop, I feel like that is enough to show that the Creation account certainly takes more faith to believe than Evolutionary theory.

To me personal evolution is a fact. Considered that thousands of scientists all over the world have proofed facts that can proof the theory of evolution, I can imagine that some very crazy religious person can't and doesn't want to now about it and wants to do something about it and goes screaming and yelling that evolution is a joke and a lie. But the facts still remain. And well sorry for these religious persons that are so extremely religious that they cannot live with the fact that evolution is a fact. But at least evolution has facts that can proof the story, and that is something we cannot say about most religions.

Prepare for incoming Defenders of the Faith in: 3...2...1...

-Peace-

once we create a life form evolution will be proven false.

infinite regression (creator of the creator) falls apart if we create life.

if our creation has a creator then its creator must have a creator.

why do yiu think creation has to happen via deity?

dont u think we will produce life eventually?

does adaptation happen? absolutly.

does changing skincoloer or hair lead to a new species? nope

is a scientific religion.

reply to post by Eryiedes


Well that was the point of the thread. If they don't show up and I just end up with an echo chamber of atheists agreeing with me, the thread's intention will have failed. My purpose is to educate (or at least show Creationists the error in their reasoning), not get a bunch of people to agree with me. So bring em on.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Dear Krazysh0t, (And Hi! Eryides.)

Interesting idea and I like the way you're going about it. I do have a question though, and that is what do you want Creationists to defend? You might think that is obvious, but you wrote this:

Creationists claim that Creationism is a valid theory or something. Therefore Creationists, instead of attacking Evolution, defend your "theory" like we are always forced to do about Evolution.

. . .

I feel like that is enough to show that the Creation account certainly takes more faith to believe than Evolutionary theory.

Do you want Creationism defended, or the literal account of Genesis to be defended? As you point out, it can be taken literally or figuratively.

So, just to clear things up do you want someone to defend:

The literal account of Genesis? (I'm not your guy for that today.)

A figurative interpretation of Genesis?

Or the Creationist belief in general? If so, do we assume there is a God? Or do we have to defend His existence, too? If we have to defend His existence, I think I'll let somebody else do that. I feel as though I've gone over that ground a lot lately.

Good OP. Again, a serious effort, and I appreciate it. keep it up.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Another_Nut


This isn't a post about evolution. Please stick to the topic at hand. Also, people create life all the time. What do you think having a baby is?

Sure, evolution is self evident, but it can't explain how the universe started. I'm not religious, but I don't dismiss the idea the universe could have been created. The creator doesn't have to come from the Bible.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

This isn't a post about evolution. Please stick to the topic at hand. Also, people create life all the time. What do you think having a baby is?

ahh so my reson has proven itself true.

i can tell by the way u try to make having sex the same as creation of a lifeform

good to see u cant defend against my arguement

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks for the reply. Either one is fine with me. The literal one is the one I take the most issue with, but I find the entire bible dubious (as highlighted at the end of the OP) so even though the figurative one can be applied to mainstream scientific theories, it is probably incorrect.

Like I mentioned in the OP, we cannot be sure that the bible was told correctly when it was passed down orally. We certainly have copies of ancient bibles that show that at the very least the bible was transcribed correctly, but the biggest problem I see is the oral passing of the stories. Everyone hears how their friend who catches a huge, every time he retells the story, the fish gets bigger and bigger. Keep in mind the ONLY way for these stories to be passed on was orally and they weren't written down. To expect them to remain consistent for centuries is pure folly.

reply to post by CallYourBluff


Evolution doesn't make a claim about how the universe started. The Big Bang Theory does that. Understand that there is more than just one theory in science to explain how things are the way they are.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by charles1952

 

Thanks for the reply. Either one is fine with me. The literal one is the one I take the most issue with, but I find the entire bible dubious (as highlighted at the end of the OP) so even though the figurative one can be applied to mainstream scientific theories, it is probably incorrect.

Like I mentioned in the OP, we cannot be sure that the bible was told correctly when it was passed down orally. We certainly have copies of ancient bibles that show that at the very least the bible was transcribed correctly, but the biggest problem I see is the oral passing of the stories. Everyone hears how their friend who catches a huge, every time he retells the story, the fish gets bigger and bigger. Keep in mind the ONLY way for these stories to be passed on was orally and they weren't written down. To expect them to remain consistent for centuries is pure folly.

why do u insist on using the bible as a case for creation?

i will argure creation.

i wont argue bbiblical anything

Krazysh0t
reply to post by CallYourBluff

 

Evolution doesn't make a claim about how the universe started. The Big Bang Theory does that. Understand that there is more than just one theory in science to explain how things are the way they are.

You completely missed my point.

Sigh... I'll refute your points. But please stop talking about Evolution. Also your whole argument is 8 lines long. Post something of substance next time.

Another_Nut
once we create a life form evolution will be proven false.

How so? Evolution doesn't explain how life began. If we create life, it can still be subjected to the laws of Evolution.

infinite regression (creator of the creator) falls apart if we create life.

No it doesn't. If you believe that it would, you are going to have to expand on that idea. A simple sentence saying it is so won't cut it.

if our creation has a creator then its creator must have a creator.

why do yiu think creation has to happen via deity?

I don't... I'm challenging people who DO think it has to happen via deity.

dont u think we will produce life eventually?

Sure, I guess so, and that would go a long way to helping describe how life arose on this planet I'm sure. We cannot POOF life into creation like apparently God can so if we can produce it, it would show a more logical way that life came about.

does adaptation happen? absolutly.

does changing skincoloer or hair lead to a new species? nope

is a scientific religion.

Evolution arguments (and poor ones at that) that I'm not going to waste time responding to.

First off, science gives probabilities, not proof.

3. It's not a process that seeks the truth or facts.
The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

4. It's not a process that attempts to prove things.
The process of science, when properly applied, actually attempts to disprove ideas (tentative explanations)... a process called "testing", or "challenging". If the idea survives testing, then it is stronger, and more likely an accurate explanation.

Source

I'm an atheist. However, lets look at the volume of witnesses for the opposing viewpoints. Evolution, though not a new idea, has relatively few sources when compared with the idea of creation. Historically, humans overwhelmingly testify to the veracity of creation(in one form or another)in writing, in word, and in deed. Even today, the overwhelming majority of the planet believes in a deity, and believes a deity is responsible for our existence.

If we were to number the amount of adherents to each system for all time, or even just for modern times. The atheistic evolutionists would be a cup of water in an ocean of creationists. So the question really boils down to which creation story is correct. Scientists might say we have enough evidence to conclude god used evolution as a vehicle for creating humans.

My point being. Whatever science finds to be of high probability, isn't going to negate the idea of creation. It's a matter of faith, and no one can prove or disprove it. If 1000 witnesses say you shot JR, and one says you didn't. What do you think your chances of aquittal are?

CallYourBluff

Krazysh0t
reply to post by CallYourBluff

 

Evolution doesn't make a claim about how the universe started. The Big Bang Theory does that. Understand that there is more than just one theory in science to explain how things are the way they are.

You completely missed my point.

I'm agnostic atheist for the most part. I try to lean more on the agnostic part of the belief though. Therefore I agree with you that the universe could be created by a divine force. I just want proof of this before I believe it. Keep in mind evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, and other theories like them are all answers to the question "how" not "why".

reply to post by Another_Nut


I don't, creationists do. I'm just trying to give fair play to the Christian Creationists who constantly attack evolution by saying their version of events takes less faith than evolution.

Krazysh0t
Sigh... I'll refute your points. But please stop talking about Evolution. Also your whole argument is 8 lines long. Post something of substance next time.

Another_Nut
once we create a life form evolution will be proven false.

How so? Evolution doesn't explain how life began. If we create life, it can still be subjected to the laws of Evolution.

infinite regression (creator of the creator) falls apart if we create life.

No it doesn't. If you believe that it would, you are going to have to expand on that idea. A simple sentence saying it is so won't cut it.

if our creation has a creator then its creator must have a creator.

why do yiu think creation has to happen via deity?

I don't... I'm challenging people who DO think it has to happen via deity.

dont u think we will produce life eventually?

Sure, I guess so, and that would go a long way to helping describe how life arose on this planet I'm sure. We cannot POOF life into creation like apparently God can so if we can produce it, it would show a more logical way that life came about.

does adaptation happen? absolutly.

does changing skincoloer or hair lead to a new species? nope

is a scientific religion.

Evolution arguments (and poor ones at that) that I'm not going to waste time responding to.

edit on 5-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

yiu dont even know what u are arguinh

is this no creation period?

is thisevolution vs creation

creation vs creation?

biblical creation vs evolution?

because yiu op just says creation.

Klassified
First off, science gives probabilities, not proof.

3. It's not a process that seeks the truth or facts.
The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

4. It's not a process that attempts to prove things.
The process of science, when properly applied, actually attempts to disprove ideas (tentative explanations)... a process called "testing", or "challenging". If the idea survives testing, then it is stronger, and more likely an accurate explanation.

Source

Fair enough. That is a good point. I'm not trying to gloss over how science works, so you are right here.

I'm an atheist. However, lets look at the volume of witnesses for the opposing viewpoints. Evolution, though not a new idea, has relatively few sources when compared with the idea of creation. Historically, humans overwhelmingly testify to the veracity of creation(in one form or another)in writing, in word, and in deed. Even today, the overwhelming majority of the planet believes in a deity, and believes a deity is responsible for our existence.

Now as an atheist, you must understand that people's beliefs don't constitute proof of any sort. Just because a large majority of the people on the Earth believe something, doesn't inherently make it true.

If we were to number the amount of adherents to each system for all time, or even just for modern times. The atheistic evolutionists would be a cup of water in an ocean of creationists. So the question really boils down to which creation story is correct. Scientists might say we have enough evidence to conclude god used evolution as a vehicle for creating humans.

Your last sentence makes the most sense out of any creation account I've ever heard that incorporates God into it.

My point being. Whatever science finds to be of high probability, isn't going to negate the idea of creation. It's a matter of faith, and no one can prove or disprove it. If 1000 witnesses say you shot JR, and one says you didn't. What do you think your chances of aquittal are?

edit on 12/5/2013 by Klassified because: clarity

That is a poor comparison, courtroom evidence and scientific evidence are two different things and you should know this. Your post started so strong by pointing out how I was misrepresenting science then you say this. Again, what people say and believe doesn't constitute scientific proof of anything. We all know that a lie repeated over and over again will eventually be accepted as truth. Religion has been repeated over and over again since we hopped out of the trees, it's going to be a little hard to shake the roots of the lie from its foundations.

Another_Nut

Krazysh0t
Sigh... I'll refute your points. But please stop talking about Evolution. Also your whole argument is 8 lines long. Post something of substance next time.

Another_Nut
once we create a life form evolution will be proven false.

How so? Evolution doesn't explain how life began. If we create life, it can still be subjected to the laws of Evolution.

infinite regression (creator of the creator) falls apart if we create life.

No it doesn't. If you believe that it would, you are going to have to expand on that idea. A simple sentence saying it is so won't cut it.

if our creation has a creator then its creator must have a creator.

why do yiu think creation has to happen via deity?

I don't... I'm challenging people who DO think it has to happen via deity.

dont u think we will produce life eventually?

Sure, I guess so, and that would go a long way to helping describe how life arose on this planet I'm sure. We cannot POOF life into creation like apparently God can so if we can produce it, it would show a more logical way that life came about.

does adaptation happen? absolutly.

does changing skincoloer or hair lead to a new species? nope

is a scientific religion.

Evolution arguments (and poor ones at that) that I'm not going to waste time responding to.

edit on 5-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

yiu dont even know what u are arguinh

is this no creation period?

is thisevolution vs creation

creation vs creation?

biblical creation vs evolution?

because yiu op just says creation.

No you don't know what I'm arguing about. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm postulating. I edited the OP with a paragraph at the beginning to explain my position more throughly.