Discussing the evidence that support creationism

Yes, but life isn't random. If life is to originate, it must be using something that has properties that lend it to life. So, you couldn't just randomly pick an element from the periodic table to build life out of, just as you wouldn't randomly pick a material from the hardware store to build a chair. You have to consider the properties of the material.Carbon has many properties that cause it to be a very good building block. It has four electrons in its outer shell, allowing it to form four bonds with other atoms (or a double bond/triple bond with something). This allows it to form long chains, as in sugars and fats, plus to form a chain along with nitrogen, as in amino acids.Oxygen has six valance electrons, so it could only form two bonds (or a double bond). Lead and radon are rare, and plus radon barely reacts with anything.Iron is a transition metal, and as such forms complexes with things like oxygen (as in O₂ or H₂O). This is useful in some organic processes (such as binding oxygen in hemoglobin), but not particularly useful if you want to be able to make hydrophobic (water-repelling) parts of a protein. And without hydrophobic parts, the water will never 'push' the protein to fold up. Not to mention that life would have a terrible problem with rust.Some sci-fi authors have speculated about other molecules making life, but each has their problems. You can read about some of them here: Alternative Biochemistry It might be able to, but from what we tell, life needs to have water or some other very common polar solvent that forms crystals. That might not be true, but certainly it would make things easier. So, either carbon-based lifeforms were the only ones created, or they were the only ones that evolved. This isn't really good evidence for creation if evolution can also explain it, is it?Edited by Doddy, : bbcode

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! This is what we are up against. There are thousands around the world more being (home-)schooled in the same way. But the internet is far reaching! Teach evolution by joining the Evolution Education Wiki today!

But look at the Pharisees and Jews in Jesus day. They took OT scrolls at face value and yet missed the mark. Salvation came to the people no one would have thought. Why can this not be true again? Why cant church folks be so intent on thinking they know the entire truth that they miss the mark? Why can't salvation be possible based on the law written on our hearts rather than contained in a book? Edited by Phat, : spelling

Of course, the topic of this thread is evidence that supports creationism. You have explained that you believe in creation. You have explained the reasons for your belief. You have provided ad hoc explanations for sundry facts about the history of the earth that are inconsistent with creationism. What you have yet to do is provide evidence.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Why must evidence be considered to be for one side and against the other? And why only consider there to be just two sides? And two mutually-exclusive sides at that?You're discovering that creationists have been lying to you about their claims. Why believe them when they feed you their "two model approach" (TMA)? Their TMA is a false dilemma (False dilemma - Wikipedia). The most classic use of it is to "prove" creation (which is defined as young-earth bible-literalist creationism, a small subset of the several different kinds of belief in creation) solely by attacking and "disproving" evolution (though their evolution model is a caricature misrepresentation of evolution and the rest of science).Rather, evolution needs to be considered based on the evidence, just as the various forms of creationism must be considered based on the evidence. This is why jar and many others keep looking for and asking for a creation model. After decades, there is still no creation model forthcoming. Nor is there any evidence that is ever presented for creation; all that they toss about is their false and misleading "evidences" against their misconception of evolution.Now, I know that creationists preach that you must accept either the Creator or atheistic "evolutionism" (whatever that is; they refuse to properly define it or discuss it). But science, including evolution, is not atheistic (taken here in the sense of anti-God), they just cannot deal with the supernatural. Nor is evolution inherently antithetical to creation. Unless you dictate to God that you will not allow Him to use Nature, there is nothing to say that your Creator could not have used natural processes to perform the Creation. The only conflict arises if you make narrow theological demands because of narrow interpretations -- please note that both those interpretations and theology are Word of Man.To quote a physicist and practicing Christian, Dr. Allan Harvey ("Science and Christian Apologetics", No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html):

quote:

---

Maybe my most important message today is that this “God of the Gaps” theology is wrong. The reason it’s wrong is that God is sovereign over nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists is upheld by God’s power. God isn’t just in the gaps, he’s the creator and sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call “natural.” So what does God’s sovereignty over nature mean for our apologetics? It means that science isn’t any threat to Christianity. Scientific results don’t count as points against God, they’re just uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the wrong thing to do is to argue against the science - that’s defending the God of the Gaps and it’s a losing strategy (unfortunately, it’s the strategy of a lot of Christians). The right thing to do is to remember that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that natural explanations mean God is absent isn’t science, it’s completely unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don’t eliminate the Christian God.

---

Be sure to read the rest of his excellent essay. You can access his other essays at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm. He is a practicing Christian; he wrote most of these essays for or based on presentations he gave in the adult Sunday School at his church.Most of what I seen in "creation science" and in "intelligent design" is God of the Gaps, that claims that naturalistic explanations of how this happened are proof against God. Well, congratulations! They just accomplished what science never could, assuming that science ever wanted to. The creationists provide proof against the existence of God.So, is your god Sovereign over Nature? Or a puny God of the Gaps, whose followers must forever hide fearfully from the truth?From earlier in Dr. Harvey's essay:

quote:

---

My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. You hear missionaries talk about unreached people groups; here’s a group of people that aren’t hearing the Gospel because they can’t get past the huge credibility barrier put up by the things some Christians say about science.

​

But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: {Luke 17:1-2} “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”

​

So, how do we give our children a foundation that won’t crumble the first time they take a college science class, and how do we keep science from being a stumbling block to people like Albert? I’ve thought about these things a lot, and I’ve decided that at the root of our problems are two fundamental mistakes, and both of them involve taking our human philosophy and letting it dictate to God what he can and can’t do. I hope you’d all agree that dictating to God isn’t a good idea.

---

True, true. But, if you use carbon because of the outer shell, why not use another element of the same group, like silicon (although not a very carbon-based life from life-giving element)? It would have roughly the same chemical properties, just an extra 'shell' of electrons.By the way, I'm playing both sides of the equation. If I simply play the creationist side, people will call me ignroant and stupid. So, I make sure that although it supports my theory, that I've thought of other explinations.

I don't think I know the whole truth. That's why I joined this. I want to know what others think. I want to weigh the ideas against eachother. I think salvation is based on our hearts, and not if we've broken x amount of laws.

"Dr" Kent Hovind is considered a scientist by most of his followers. He has repeatedly boasted to his audiences that he's an expert in science and math, because he had taught those subjects for 15 years.Actually, his MS and "PhD" are not in science, but rather in "religious education". For that matter, his doctorate is disputed as being from a degree mill. Whatever the status of that institution, his "dissertation" is very substandard and its handling goes against all convention (it's not published, but rather is an ongoing work, etc). He ran his own private Christian school in which he taught math and science.And his understanding of how the sun "burns its fuel" appears to be that it is by combustion and apparently he believes that combustion results in the annihilation of matter.The question of creationist credentials comes up frequently. There are a number of real PhD's, some of them even in sciences; eg, Dr. Henry Morris, the father of Flood Geology, held PhD in Hydraulic Engineering and his colleague at the ICR, Dr. Duane Gish, holds a PhD in biochemistry. Not really relevant to the fields of biology, geology, astrophysics. I must admit, I still have to chuckle that they list one or two "scientists" whose degrees are in "Food Science". And there are the honorary PhDs and the store-bought ones, which abound.If all you saw was "Dr", would that have been enough for you to have accepted Hovind's claim on face value?Or do you agree that one must look deeper into what is being presented?

Sorry but that is simply more of the false dichotomies that the Biblical Creationists use to scare you.Remember the Clergy Project Letter.All of the Clergy that signed it believe in the Bible. They believe in salvation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That message was directed to the sender.

Probably, but all of my respect of him would have been lost when I found out the truth. I don't respect liers.

No, creation must be true. And there is nothing in science nor in evolution that demands that it not be true. Rather, it is one of the lies of creationism that if evolution is true then the Bible must be false. Well, if they lied to you about everything else, then why should you believe this lie as well?John Morris of the ICR stated: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." (at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism).He is dead wrong on that. If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then John Morris' interpretation of Scripture is wrong. And John Morris' interpretation of Scripture, as well as his "creation science" teachings, are the Word of Man. If the Word of Man proves to be wrong, how could that possibly prove the Word of God to be false?Are you intent on claiming to follow the Word of God when you are in fact following the Word of Man?Edited by dwise1, : HTML cleanup

I follow what I believe to be in the Bible. I have had enough experiances to trust God to tell me what he means by certain aspects/versus of the Bible when I need them.By the way, for HTML, you need to use the 'greater-than' or 'lesser-than' symbols, or the effect isn't made. < u > (spaces not included) will produce an underlined word, [u] will not.

Aye. And therein lies the rub.My story of how I got started with "creation science" is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/warum.html.Basically, I first encountered it as part of the "Jesus Freak" movement circa 1970. It sounded ridiculous then and I brushed it aside without a second thought. A decade later I discovered that it was still around, so this time I thought that, hey, there must be something to it after all. So I looked into it. And I was appalled at the false claims, the misrepresentation, and the outright lies that the entire movement was based on. That same experience has been shared by many others.And their witness is that they believe that their god must be served by lies and their religious can only be defended by lies. I keep asking, but receive no response: which Christian deity is it who is to be served by lies and deception?

No human could ever invent the idea of my God.

I've noticed that most fail to discern between what's in the Bible and what they are told is in the Bible. It is important to be sure of the source of our beliefs.There was a creationist who insisted to me that he only followed what is in the Bible. He also insisted that the Bible must be entirely correct and not contain even a single error, for if it were to contain even one single error than the entire Bible was false and should be thrown in the trash and we should all become hedonist atheists. I asked him where in the Bible that it says that. He suddenly was far too busy to continue our correspondence.In forum software, square brackets are used and that is what I've been using in to create italics in the other posts. But for some reason this forum's software has trouble at times.Edited by dwise1, : added the story