A Few Questions For Creationists

As a person who accepts Evolutionary Theory, I want to understand the Creationist position a bit better. I want to understand exactly what it is that creationists believe. To this end, I have a few questions that I hope some of you can answer, and give YOUR opinion, and if you don’t know, saying you don’t know is a valid answer. Some of these questions are relevant only to “young-earthers” and some only to “old-earthers”, so I am breaking the questions out into groups, so you don’t need to answer questions that are not relevant to your beliefs.I know there are a number of these types of things on various websites meant to be “stumpers“, but that is NOT the intent of this post. These are questions I honestly want to hear answers for from the “other side”, so I can better understand that position.Also, I am giving a typically understood definition of creationists, and their two main sub-types, if you disagree with these definitions, please let me know why.All Creationists (you believe that “god” create “types” of animals, and that species do not evolve into other species through means of natural selection. You may accept micro-evolution [breeds of dogs can evolve from a single dog type] but you reject macro evolution [dogs, cats, apes, humans, birds, reptiles, etc all evolved from a common ancestor]):

1. How old is the earth (roughly)?
   ​
2. And how old is the universe?
   ​
3. How much have you yourself read or studied the Theory of Evolution?
   ​
4. Of that reading/studying (if any), how much was reading or studying the works of evolutionary biologists or others who accept evolution as valid (such as Charles Darwin, Steven J Gould, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, etc) as opposed to reading anti-evolution sources (such as the Discovery Institute)?
   ​
5. What is the BEST evidence in your opinion that supports the idea of creation? I’m not asking here for “holes” that you feel exist in evolution, but for specific evidence that positively supports creationism.
   ​
6. What would it take to convince you that evolution is the means by which all species were “created”, over the course of billions of years (this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some amount of evidence you’d require)?

Old Earth Creationists (you believe that Genesis is not a historical account and accept the age of the universe as being 13-15 billion years old):

1. What is about evolution that you believe is inconsistent with “god” using it as a means to create new species over millions over years?
   ​
2. If you accept the age of the earth in billions of years, then do you think that there was one “creation” of animals, and that mankind walked with dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago, or were there multiple “creations” and every so often “god” creates a new “type” of animal, with humans being created long after many other species had gone exinct (such as the dinosaurs)?
   ​
3. If there was ONE creation millions (or billions) of years ago, why does our recorded history only go back a few thousand years (i.e. if we’ve been this “smart for so long, why did we only start writing things down so recently)?
   ​
   If there were multiple creations over time, how does a “creation” happen, does a new “type” just appear where before there was none (let’s use dogs as an example, at some point there were no dogs, but there were many other animals, and then there were dogs, what happened in that moment where dogs were created (were just two created, or many, were all different breeds created at once, or did dobermans and chiwawas, etc come from a single ancestor, etc)?
   ​
4. Do you find the claims of “young-earthers” to be valid and reasonable claims based on your understanding of holy books and science?

Young Earth Creationists (you believe that Genesis is a literal account of history, and the earth is roughly 6-10 thousand years old):

1. Why does the evidence of geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc all make it seems as if the earth and the universe are much older than your beliefs say they should be? Is it a “test” or “joke” of some sort from “god”?
   ​
2. Why, if the earth is as young as you claim, would so many branches of science (geology, physics, astronomy, biology, cosmology, anthropology, chemistry, etc), and scientists claim otherwise? Are they intentionally lying, or deluded, or does “god” want to hide the truth from some people, or is there some other reason?
   ​
3. Other religions than yours (whatever yours may be) have different accounts of creation than your religion does, and these accounts are not based on science, or evolution, etc. Why do you think there are so many accounts of how things came to be that differ from your own view?
   ​
4. What type of evidence would you require to accept the age of the earth and the universe as being billions of years old, as opposed to thousands of years old (as before, this could be as simple as “god” telling you personally, or some specific evidence you’d require)?

Also if there is anything else you have to say on the subject of evolution and/or creationism, feel free to add it, as I’m sure that my questions may not cover all of your specific thoughts on the subject.[Originally posted at: A few questions for creationists | Rodibidably ]Edited by Rodibidably, : [Edited for mod approval]Edited by Rodibidably, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Make numbered lists easier to read.

The guidelines require that you bring your issues here and not simply refer to other sites.We'd also have to restrict arguing about individual issues so the thread doesn't get totally out of control as far as topic. Perhaps just let them answer and leave it at that.

Edited for your approval (not a link, now it's the questions from the original source)...As for your idea of restricting to only answers, that's your call.My idea is not to start arguments, but to get answers from creationists. I have some ideas on what their answers MAY be, but those may very well be "straw-man" arguments, which is why I'd like to hear "from the horse's mouth" as it were...

I'd also like to point out, that the individual questions are not meant to be divisive. I took great pains to make them as uncontroversial as possible, while still be able to learn about the beliefs of others.As for how people reply to comments that people may make, I can' really control that, but the questions themselves should not offend anybody on either "side" of the debate.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Theistic evolutionists should be considered creationists because they still believe that God CREATED species even though they accept that he used evolution to do it.

my brief creo opinion is that the specifics are, while to some degree important, secondary to belief in God. The main point about being loyal to the bible is that the believer doesn't end up telling God what he means when he said he created the universe.This fairly large oversight shouldn't be disregarded because afterall, as a Creationist I believe man has become his own god - thinking he knows it all, and that he can answer every problem, WITHOUT God.Therefore, although these questions can be asked, it's important that Creationists don't BECOME the same as none-believers, by looking to their own intellect, rather than the bible.In truth a lot of these questions don't bother me. A lot of the time atheists are just trying to be smart by asking, "oh but what about this, what about that", but when you look into the issue, you'll find that just as many questions can be fired back, such as the large oversights of dino blood being preserved favouring a younger dino, or stuck in a rut fossils favouring Creationism, as these beasts seem to have preserved in a uber-environment which only existed for them, and not the other creatures. (And there are literally hundreds of species stuck in this uber-environments whereby they don't change morphologically).I could go on making these peronsal points but it would only end up angering evosEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Way to evade having to answer any of the questions and not be bound to any 1 particular theory of creationism.*Rodibidably your intentions are great by trying to get answers but, I suspect that you'll get this type of response,(like mike the wiz's), which is to try and show the supposed problems with evolution from creo websites rather than get a straight answer on their position.Typical response: Instead of stating your position mike, as was asked by the OP, you choose to answer with "Well evolution has problems too", which is a total evation of what was asked.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

quote:

---

ou'll find that just as many questions can be fired back, such as the large oversights of dino blood being preserved favouring a younger dino, or stuck in a rut fossils favouring Creationism, as these beasts seem to have preserved in a uber-environment which only existed for them, and not the other creatures. (And there are literally hundreds of species stuck in this uber-environments whereby they don't change morphologically).

---

If only those statements were true. Too bad they aren't. Dino Blood for instance is hardly what you make it out to be. There are at least 3 threads where showing that the whole creationism claim on dino blood is a giant sham proving that once again YECs are lying POS. As for a rut fossil, that doesn't favor creationism at all. All it does it show that a specimen's fossils were buried between layers. As for morphologically unchanging species, that's again a fraud. For instance, the ceolcanth from the fossils is anatomically different from the ceolcanths that are swimming around today. Even the populations of ceolcanths are different meaning those in the Africa populations are different from the Asian ones.

I agree that on one sense there are theists who accept evolution as a valid scientific means of creating the species on the planet.
I also understand that in some circles they are refered to as "creationists", because they believe that technically everything was created by "god".However for the purposes of this thread, their opinions and views are not really relevant, as they accept evolution, and I am trying to understand the beliefs of people who do not accept evolution.Most, if not all of these questions would be irrelevant towards anybody who accepts evolution, since their answers will generally be the same as my own, whether they believe in a "god" or not.

mike,
I am not questioning your faith in god, your belif in god, your religion, etc.
I'm not even implying that your view is wrong.I am only trying ot understand more clearly what it is creationists believe (beyond the obvious that "god" created things).I think all of these questions are fair questions that are not offensive to creationists, and will help me personally understand the views of others, so that I do not have a "straw-man" in my mind.If you're unwilling ot answer the questions you can say so, but to say that you are not bothered by the questions, and then not give any answers to them is a bit odd.None of my questions are "attacking" creationism.
I understand that "your side" has many things that you feel show holes in evolution, however I fail to see how that is relevant, as nothing I said (or asked) is in any way showing a negative towards creationism.Obviously you've thought about some of these questions before, so I'd appreiecate your answers. If you're going ot avoid what are relavily begnin questions, I do hope you'll explain what problems you see in the questions, as I intended them to specifically NOT be contriversial, but only to help me gain a better understanding.

I'm afraid you may be correct, but I'm hoping that at least some creationists will share their thoughts.I feel these questions are not at all contriversial (which was intentional), so I don't see any particular reason to avoid answering.I don't want ot jump to conclusions as to the reason mike avoided answering, but I'm hopeful (naive?) that he and others will give me a better understanding of their position.

You anger "evos" more by evading the questions.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Roughly 6-10,000 years. The same age, give or take a day or so. About 25 years worth of reading or so. I read both sides often. I work in a science related business and I suscribe to Science magazine. The Bible. I'm not trying to be funny. It is a source of information that wisely leads some scientists. The observable repeatable creation of life through spontaneous generation. I realize that evolution is silent about the origin of life, but origin of life theories rely heavily on evolution. No test, no joke. It's just a matter of faith. Can there be an infinite force in the universe that is non-material? Can there be an energy source that is eternal yet non-material? I hope you will answer my questions like I have yours.The earth and the universe date billions of years. That's a fact. The Bible states that God created in six days. That is also a fact. Either the dating methods have false assumptions (uniformitarian), or the Bible is untrue in it's literal interpretation. It is that simple. There is some evidence of a young earth and a young universe. There is also some evidence that uniformitarian assumptions about the dating methods may not be right. I will answer your question with a question. Did President Bush, Clinton, Bush #1, most of congress, the UN, the inspectors all lie about the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they "deluded"? Or did God hide the truth from them?Or did they just interpret the evidence according to their paradigm and draw conclusions from that? Well it's simple math. There are as many accounts that differ from my view as there are that differ from your view or the scientific view. Why should mine be singled out?Also, If you have read beyond the scientific material, then I'm sure that you realize that many think that science is religious also. I lean in that direction. That's the crux of it isn't it. The age of the earth. Uniformitarianism. God already has told me personally. He has told you personally also. It is written in His Book, the Bible.You have put your faith in a method of logic which eliminates one very important possible variable. That method of logic comes to different conclusions every day. I have chosen to put my faith in someone who really knows the truth if He exists. My paradigm doesn't ignore Him. My paradigm easily accepts non-material entities in the universe. Your paradigm struggles with them. But there is no denying that they exist.

Hi Rodibidably, and welcome to EvC.I will give you my answers to your questions, I hope they can help you understand why I believe in creation. I believe in the beginning God created all the animals, birds, and man from the earth, thus they had a common source.
Micro evolution happens, it has been observed and can be reproduced in tests.
Macro evolution may or may not happen. It has never been observed or reproduced in tests. Eternal from the beginning until now in some form. Unless someone has come up with a way matter and energy can come into being. Created the same day as the earth. Enough to know that the ToE has nothing to do with creation of the universe or life. It deals with the process of life evolving after life existed. I have read Darwin's Origin of the Species in which he states on page 490 of the original:

quote:

---

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;

---

Darwin believed life was breathed into a few forms or at the least into one. You are talking about 2 subjects here. Creation is the actual coming into being of something and creationism is the belief of how that creation took place, of which there are many views.As far as the BEST evidence for creation (coming into being, existence) I think Stephen Hawking gives the BEST evidence. He said: Here

quote:

---

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

---

Hawking says the universe had a beginning.I also like to quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6: Where he says: Peeble's says( T=10^-43 the earlist time we know anything about) was not the beginning of the universe. Implying there was a beginning to the universe. Someone to produce the evidence that Darwin said would be there if his theory was correct. Correction. I believe in a universe that is as old as string theorist if not older. I also believe the account given in Genesis is a historical account of creation.I believe Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. I also believe the record of what happened in that day as recorded in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26. God said He formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. Now if God formed them and brought them to the first man to name how could they have evolved over millions of years? Either God did it like He said or He didn't do it. I could accept any number for the age of the earth that man could come up with. It has changed over the course of time.I believe there was a day that lasted from Genesis 1:1 that if measured in our frame we call time would be longer than any number you could come up with. During this time the only record of what happened is what we have in Genesis 2:4-4:26, and the rocks themselves. The evening of that day is found in Genesis 1:5 as that evening and the next morning was the first day.At anytime during this day God could have repopulated the earth with animals as there was many extinction events that occurred. There are many animals that came into being that cannot be accounted for in Darwin's theory of evolution of coming into existence over millions of years.The first man and or some of his descendants could have walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. They could have also been extinct by that time.The man that was created in Genesis 1:27 was not formed from the dust of the ground but instead was created in the image of God. This was the last creature or thing God created. This man and the man formed in Genesis 2:7 which was the first creature of any kind created, are different people at different times. In my lifetime alone we have gone from writing things down to dictating them into a microphone and putting things on tapes, and other types of media. How long will these last if the earth goes through an extinction event where very little life is left. There was one creation in Genesis 1:1. 2:4-4:26. From that time until now there has only been modifications made. The only modifications we have record of is found in Genesis 1:2-2:3.A dog is nothing more than a domesticated wolf as they can still interbreed. In my opinion they miss the mark. But that is only my opinion, which only matters to me and God. He will be their judge as well as mine.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."