Evidence for Creationism, is there any?

[FreddieFreeloader]

I found this quote in the "Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?" thread, as a response to a claim that there was no scientific backing for Creationism.

No scienticfic backing? What do you call Louis Pastuer's studys that disproved spontaneous generation? How do you explain the the fact that the earth is perfectly placed, that if it were just little bit over here or a little bit over there that we'd either burn up or freeze? Have you ever studied the complexity of the human body, of a plant or animal, or even of a microscopic cell?

As evolutionists (I'm doing the popular thing of calling evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology the same for sake of simplicity)
provide backing for their theories Creationists (specifically Young Earth Creationists) try to explain "scientifically" why that evidence doesn't hold.

I observe two things in above quote. First a misunderstanding of the implications of scientific studies (here in the case of Pasteur's experiment), but secondly, and more importantly, in the question of the burden of proof.

On to my question: Ignoring whether or not Creationists are correct in disproving the theories... Does disproving evolution, prove creationism?

I think that the answer is a loud and clear NO!

Then I ask you, what evidence do we have for Creationism?

[Curious]

I originally posted this in soft tissue in tyrannosaurus rex but this thread seems to be more active and is relevant.

The Torah says:

23 Vayimach et-kol-hayekum asher al-penei ha'adamah me'adam ad behemah ad-remes ve'ad-of hashamayim vayimachu min-ha'aretz vayisha'er ach-Noach va'asher ito batevah.
[He] obliterated every being that was on the surface of the ground; from man to animals, to creeping creatures, and to the birds of the heaven. they were obliterated from the earth. Only Noach and those with him in the ark survived.

If this is to be taken as truth then the flood would not create a single fossil as the creatures were "obliterated from the earth".

[QED]

Why do we keep returning to the Global Flood when we're asking for evidence of Creationism? Granted Creationists place a Flood on the time-line of creation but it doesn't get us to the root of the issue -- what can we see in life that informs us that it must have been deliberately designed by God?

[Jose]

Why do we keep returning to the Global Flood when we're asking for evidence of Creationism? Granted Creationists place a Flood on the time-line of creation but it doesn't get us to the root of the issue -- what can we see in life that informs us that it must have been deliberately designed by God?

This is an interesting question. I think we've kicked it around some, with the tentative conclusion that the only relevant creation story is Genesis, which includes the flood. There doesn't seem to be any interest among the US fundamentalists in demonstrating any other creation story. So, the logic goes, the flood is an essential part of creation.

In my opinion, it is impossible to disprove creation, since creation could create a world that looks just like the one we have, complete with fossils and billion-year-old light. It just requires a creator with a sense of humor. So, the next best thing is to tackle the flood, for which there are clear predictions as to what kinds of data would support it, and what kinds of data would discredit it completely. Once we've discredited the flood idea, then it seems, we have to accept Genesis as metaphorical, and there's no longer any conflict between Christianity and science.

The alternative route is the ID path, which we've shown is bogus. If you set up an incorrect assumption, you can prove that the process that requires that assumption is wrong.

What other evidence is there for creation? We still haven't heard....

[juliod]

Why do we keep returning to the Global Flood when we're asking for evidence of Creationism?

I see it as a critical point of arguing from evidence.

We can show, conclusively, that creationism is false if we can show that the major events posited by creationism did not happen, even in general outline.

The key events of creationism (as presented by those who claim to believe it) are: 1) The Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Babel story.

These are central unifying themes that would be apparent if they were true. The only way to explain their lack of obviousness is the fact that they are false.

The history of language and culture completely fails to trace back to the Babel story. The science of biology completely fails to trace back to the ark. And all the remaining sciences completely fail to adhere to a unified creation around 4004 BC.

We keep talking about the flood because it is one part of the Trinity. In fact, I think we should be talking more about the falsity of the Babel story.

DanZ

[otseng]

In other words, one has to prove a negative (no life outside earth) in order to test that prediction, and if that prediction is found to be incorrect, then this is of no consequence to the creation model?

It's quite useless in order to verify if the creation model is correct or not, iisn't it?

There are two issues here. One issue is abiogenesis. Another is geocentrism. Biogenesis is foundational to creationism. Geocentrism is not. If abiogenesis is correct, it is a death blow to creationism. If geocentrism is incorrect, it does little to creationism.

Fine, but that's not the issue. But since these are real socio-political issues, even if you are not violating your TOS, you may very well be wasting people's time.

I do not believe I'm wasting anybody's time because I try to resort to logic and evidence. If I simply just made statements without any rational justification, then I would agree that it's a waste of time.

If there is a flaw with my logic or my evidence is in error, I'm open to changing my views. But, to say that there are "real socio-political" ramifications to the conclusions does not invalidate the argument.

We, the users, do want to discuss and debate with people who hold opposing points of view. But I think most people here will be irritated, at least, to find that someone is posting fictional beliefs as an amusing rhetorical excercise.

Certainly. But I am not simply exercising rhetoric for amusement purposes. I would suggest to counter-argue by showing where my logic is wrong rather than simply saying that I post fictional beliefs.

This is sufficient for us to conclude that god must have made the laws of physics, as well as biology, different than they are now.

As I've stated before, I've never argued that the laws of physics have changed during the Flood. As for physical laws changing in the past, the only ones I've heard espousing that have been evolutionists.

I guess that the important question I would ask is this: Why is it so easy to overlook the data that simply cannot be explained by a Flood Model

I would admit that the FM has unanswered questions (at least for now). But so does the UM (Uniformitarianism Model) and the EM (Evolutionary Model). However, when we compare the FM and the UM, the UM has fundamental problems that has not been sufficiently addressed. So, as I compare the two, I see less problems with the FM than with the UM.

Why do we keep returning to the Global Flood when we're asking for evidence of Creationism?

The Flood is a major part because it is the unifying factor in many of the evidence that we see from the earth. Almost everything on the earth (biology, geology, climatology, paleontology, etc) was affected by the Flood.

what can we see in life that informs us that it must have been deliberately designed by God?

To me, the Anthropic Principle is the strongest evidence that God designed life.

The alternative route is the ID path, which we've shown is bogus. If you set up an incorrect assumption, you can prove that the process that requires that assumption is wrong.

What other evidence is there for creation?

As you've alluded to, Intelligent Design is another area that points to Creationism. As to it being shown that it is bogus, I must've missed that.

[Dilettante]

otseng wrote:

I would admit that the FM has unanswered questions (at least for now). But so does the UM (Uniformitarianism Model) and the EM (Evolutionary Model). However, when we compare the FM and the UM, the UM has fundamental problems that has not been sufficiently addressed. So, as I compare the two, I see less problems with the FM than with the UM.

I never took geology at school, so I may be way off base, but I believe you are leaving out Actualism (the view that both gradual processes and catastrophic events have played a role). Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought Actualism was the current model among geologists. I don't know of any strict uniformitarians, and I certainly have never ever heard a geologist defend the Flood Model.

[QED]

OK, well, there has been much discussion about the Flood and I have searched for a few key terms that spring to my mind but have not found them so please excuse me if this has been answered before:

I'm thinking about the standing stones of Stonehenge. This fits into history at around 3000 BCE and follows after many previous monuments spanning the Stone Age.

Stone Age, the time, early in the development of human cultures, before the use of metals, when tools and weapons were made of stone. The dates of the Stone Age vary considerably for different parts of the world. In Europe, Asia, and Africa it began about 2 million years ago.

In the most advanced parts of the Middle East and Southeast Asia it ended about 6000 bc, but it lingered until 4000 bc or later in Europe, the rest of Asia, and Africa. The Stone Age in the Americas began when human beings first arrived in the New World, some 30,000 years ago, and ended in some areas about 2500 bc at the earliest.

Now I accept that standard dating methods are disputed, but the artifacts that define the Stone Age such as flint and bone tools, sculptures and cave paintings, ought to place them before the global flood (after all cave paintings depict Mammoths). So why didn't the flood obliterate all this delicate evidence? Particularly the cave paintings.

[jwu]

And furthermore, why is stonehenge as an apparent pre-flood site built on the strata which was supposedly laid down by the flood?

[ShieldAxe]

Now I accept that standard dating methods are disputed

They are? Maybe by some creationists.

[QED]

Now I accept that standard dating methods are disputed

They are? Maybe by some creationists.

Yes they most certainly do, despite the fact that the C14 decay curve matches with samples of know dates from the last 5000 years. In order to dispute the validity of this method creationists must ask us to imagine that this curve makes an abrupt detour at any point they wish to impose upon it. As nice as it would be to demonstrate that the Earth is at least 50,000 years old using this method, it won't convince any of them.

There is a planet full of data out there and I think that if wrong, the global flood story should be extraordinary enough to trip itself up in a convincing manner if the right spot can be hit. I mean convincing to it's most ardent supporter of course -- most people are already in no doubt about its lack of veracity.