Evidence for the Creationist Model

T

Tao_Equus

Guest
There have been several threads now that deal with the Creationist vs Evolutionist theories of where life came from. Each of them seems to get bogged down in the details of evolutionary theory and primarily in the question of abiogenesis. This means that the creationist model evades scrutiny.
On this thread I would like to see evidence for Creationist theory presented for debate. It would be good to see the views of supporters from all faiths that hold such a theory represented and justified with empirical evidence to support their ideas.
I look forward to a lively debate.

Regards

TE
 
i like this one.



1. He´s got the whole world in His hands,
|: He´s got the whole world in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

2. He´s got the wind and the rain in His hands,
|: He´s got the wind and the rain in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

3. He´s got the the tiny little baby in His hands,
|: He´s got the the tiny little baby in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

4. He´s got you and me, brother, in His hands,
|: He´s got you and me, brother, in His hands, :|
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

5. He's got ev'rybody here in His hands.
|: He's got ev'rybody here in His hands. :|
He's got the whole world in His hands.

6. He's got the earth and sky in his hands;
He's got the night and day in his hands;
He's got the sun and moon in his hands;
He´s got the whole world in His hands.

He´s got the whole world in His hands,
|: He´s got the whole world in His hands, :|
 
I suppose I could try to play devil's advocate here. Oooops, is that correct considering the subject? Anyway...

It's difficult to argue a position you don't really believe, even worse a position you do not know or understand. Ever since I began my personal quest, I never really did put a date. Come to think of it, still don't settle on a specific date, just a general timeline. Not unlike other scholars, I suppose. Yet, from the beginning, I have always felt there was a "guiding hand" behind it all. Initially I called this God, referencing from my Christian vantage, and I posited an anthropomorphic intent behind it all. As I have grown older, smarter and hopefully wiser, I no longer see God in an anthropomorphic sense, yet I do still see a guiding hand behind it all.

In the end I suppose I see the science as an attempt to understand how God did things. The two go together, science and God. Interestingly, I find myself in some pretty good company; Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, among others. Devout, sincere, intellectual, thoughtful, considerate, and fully able to see God in science, even when science denies God.

So, depending what it is that is meant by "creationist model," I suppose in some very discernable way I am a creationist. I just don't think the whole of creation took place in a scant 6 thousand years. (Frankly, I don't think the Bible says so either. There is a lot of nuance overlooked in the first chapter of Genesis... :D )
 
Thanks Will for that link....good site :p




juantoo3 said:
In the end I suppose I see the science as an attempt to understand how God did things. The two go together, science and God. Interestingly, I find myself in some pretty good company; Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, among others. Devout, sincere, intellectual, thoughtful, considerate, and fully able to see God in science, even when science denies God.

So, depending what it is that is meant by "creationist model," I suppose in some very discernable way I am a creationist. I just don't think the whole of creation took place in a scant 6 thousand years. (Frankly, I don't think the Bible says so either. There is a lot of nuance overlooked in the first chapter of Genesis... :D )
Click to expand...

Exactly my own position. I started my life as an out and out athiest like my parents but my love of science led me ever more deeply to the conviction that everything is not here by chance alone. What I can best describe as the 'fine balance' I see no matter where I look creates a series of improbibilities that combine to an impossibility and thus I am left with the conclusion that some tinkering is afoot.

But this 6000 year old Earth, or universe!!, idea is much more ridiculous to my mind than saying it is all indeed just chance. My belief is that the first chapter of Genesis is a simplified explanation that deals quickly and simply with the issue of creation, because it has to be dealt with for the rest to work. And I find it a little sad that so much effort goes into trying to support it word for word.

Anyway....the challenge remains........come on folks......convince me!!! The saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water.....but you cant make it drink'. Well this horse needs a drink and will drink........if the water is Good!!!

Regards

TE
 
Tao_Equus said:
Thanks Will for that link....good site :p


But this 6000 year old Earth, or universe!!, idea is much more ridiculous to my mind than saying it is all indeed just chance. My belief is that the first chapter of Genesis is a simplified explanation that deals quickly and simply with the issue of creation, because it has to be dealt with for the rest to work. And I find it a little sad that so much effort goes into trying to support it word for word.

Anyway....the challenge remains........come on folks......convince me!!! The saying goes 'You can lead a horse to water.....but you cant make it drink'. Well this horse needs a drink and will drink........if the water is Good!!!

Regards

TE
Click to expand...

of all the creationists here that i know, i dont think you are going to find one who is going to go out of his way try & 'convince' you.
you might get someone to play with it though.
i just found out recently that people believe in a 6000 year old earth & i find that just about as crazy as those who claim billions. no one knows the answer to that.

so Tao, if you dont want to drink it, then drink something different:) .
 
Bandit said:
of all the creationists here that i know, i dont think you are going to find one who is going to go out of his way try & 'convince' you.
you might get someone to play with it though.
i just found out recently that people believe in a 6000 year old earth & i find that just about as crazy as those who claim billions. no one knows the answer to that.

so Tao, if you dont want to drink it, then drink something different:) .
Click to expand...

'hic', I'l giv ish myy, 'hic', mosht thotfil andsh conshidered, 'hic', erm.............erm.............'hic'...........thingy!!! :rolleyes::p:rolleyes:


TE
 
of all the creationists here that i know, i dont think you are going to find one who is going to go out of his way try & 'convince' you.
Click to expand...
I've got the same quote, except...of all the creationists here that i know, most will go out of their way try & 'convince' you. I find those 6,000 year guys very willing to tell me about instant canyonification, and the heresy that is evolution...
 
OIC now. this is about evolutionists trying to convince creationists & making a mockery out of them & out of God.
where have i seen that before

:rolleyes:
 
Bandit said:
OIC now. this is about evolutionists trying to convince creationists & making a mockery out of them & out of God.
where have i seen that before

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

lol....good try ....but try putting the shoe on the other foot. As i see it its creationist determination to debunk science that have been bogging down any meaningful discussion of their beliefs. Thats why I started this thread, so that for once we might stop discussing the scientific and focus on the Creationist model. I think it entirely fair.....dont you? There is a debate on the abiogenesis thread for balance, if thats what concerns you.

Regards

TE
 
Tao_Equus said:
lol....good try ....but try putting the shoe on the other foot. As i see it its creationist determination to debunk science that have been bogging down any meaningful discussion of their beliefs. Thats why I started this thread, so that for once we might stop discussing the scientific and focus on the Creationist model. I think it entirely fair.....dont you? There is a debate on the abiogenesis thread for balance, if thats what concerns you.

Regards

TE
Click to expand...

i am not concerned about any of it

like i said... the same old debate
 
Bandit said:
i am not concerned about any of it

like i said... the same old debate
Click to expand...

I bet it is an old debate!! Dare i say well over 6000yrs old? :p
 
Kindest Regards, Tao!
Tao_Equus said:
lol....good try ....but try putting the shoe on the other foot. As i see it its creationist determination to debunk science that have been bogging down any meaningful discussion of their beliefs. Thats why I started this thread, so that for once we might stop discussing the scientific and focus on the Creationist model. I think it entirely fair.....dont you? There is a debate on the abiogenesis thread for balance, if thats what concerns you.
Click to expand...
I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics. There is a lot, a whole lot, of "pot calling the kettle black" going on between Christianity specifically and evolutionary biology specifically.

No doubt a lot dates back to the Higher Critical movement, which predates Darwin by what?, about a hundred years or so. It is a movement that seems to have as its motivation the rationalization of, and global indoctrination of atheism. To a large extent it has been successful. Somehow that movement settled into science and began an outright attack on religion in general and Christianity specifically, that settled in Darwinian evolution where it remains most deeply entrenched. In Europe, a blind eye may have been turned towards these events, the atheists even gaining a degree of sympathy. But in the heartland of America, such a direct challenge to the faith and sensibilities of the masses was not accepted lightly. A gauntlet was thrown down, and the battles are still waged to this day.

This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.

My two cents.
 
To get back to Tao's original post, I would like to point out that the only response that a creationist has given is a link to the Ooparts site, which, while some individual cases in the site may truly be anomalies, the majority of it appears to be either false or irrelevant in the discussion of evolution.

On top of that, it seems that the only scientific parts of creationist arguments are not, in fact, proof for creationism, but negative proof for evolution; not the same thing.

- Sarah
 
Peace to all and hi 123...

I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics. There is a lot, a whole lot, of "pot calling the kettle black" going on between Christianity specifically and evolutionary biology specifically.
No doubt a lot dates back to the Higher Critical movement, which predates Darwin by what?, about a hundred years or so. It is a movement that seems to have as its motivation the rationalization of, and global indoctrination of atheism. To a large extent it has been successful. Somehow that movement settled into science and began an outright attack on religion in general and Christianity specifically, that settled in Darwinian evolution where it remains most deeply entrenched. In Europe, a blind eye may have been turned towards these events, the atheists even gaining a degree of sympathy. But in the heartland of America, such a direct challenge to the faith and sensibilities of the masses was not accepted lightly. A gauntlet was thrown down, and the battles are still waged to this day.
This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.
Click to expand...

This finger pointing and "pot calling the kettle black" can be seen in almost every discussion i think. coz everybody is trying to avoid defeat...but not all. Some are very sincere in their dialogue coz their main gaol is to seek the truth, the right answer.... not just for the sake of arguing and defending dogmas and doctrine.
I think TE is doing the right thing by creating this thread. Although the subject is still on the same old topic, but i think there is a need for it as we are all here to discuss, share views and searching for the right answer, aren't we. So let's do it in the artful way, the kindest and sincerest we can be.
I also hope that this would be a lively thread. But no doubt, I predict, circumstances will happen sometimes.
I'd like to post some views of mine on evidence of creationism but it's almost luch time...maybe later.

Peace
 
Hi Juantoo :)




This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win
Click to expand...
.


I must say I have to disagree with that analysis. I see it much more as a search for truth and the evidence to support it. At least for the appologist for the sciences. As for being doctrinal and dogmatic, well a group can be forced into appearing to be so when under constant pressure to correct erronously presented arguments, without truly being so. I think this is the case with the vast majority of supporters of the sciences, most of whom have a highly developed spirituality but also the capacity, indeed desire, to learn more. Those that become entrenched and attempt to defend an idea in the face of substantial contrary evidence quickly cease to be regarded as credible.
You are correct to say from the scientific perspective it is not about whether God is behind all this. Its about how it works. The majority of scientists have some kind of religeous faith and do not question God but seek to know in ever greater detail the beauty and intracacy of the 'devine work'. But they do kind of develop a grudge when they see their own ideas and hard work distorted and twisted to support the unsupportable. As yet on this thread there has not been a single effort to support Creationism yet there is a never ending stream of twisted logic presented by creationists trying to debunk science on all the other related threads. Creationists have no moral authority to attack the 'ideas' (not hard facts), of the studious people who, with an open heart and mind, search for meaning in the labyrinth of complexity around us. At least not without presenting a credible alternative. This constant effort to keep the honest enquirer on the back foot is pure diversion, nothing more.

The Higher Critical Movement as you describe it I have never come across. The only group I know of that name are a Christian study group based at Cambridge University in England. Do you have a link or more info on the group to which you refer?


Kind Regards

TE
 
n4h1z said:
Peace to all and hi 123...



This finger pointing and "pot calling the kettle black" can be seen in almost every discussion i think. coz everybody is trying to avoid defeat...but not all. Some are very sincere in their dialogue coz their main gaol is to seek the truth, the right answer.... not just for the sake of arguing and defending dogmas and doctrine.
I think TE is doing the right thing by creating this thread. Although the subject is still on the same old topic, but i think there is a need for it as we are all here to discuss, share views and searching for the right answer, aren't we. So let's do it in the artful way, the kindest and sincerest we can be.
I also hope that this would be a lively thread. But no doubt, I predict, circumstances will happen sometimes.
I'd like to post some views of mine on evidence of creationism but it's almost luch time...maybe later.

Peace
Click to expand...

i wont call your kettle black if you put up your evidence.:)
 
To get back to Tao's original post, I would like to point out that the only response that a creationist has given is a link to the Ooparts site, which, while some individual cases in the site may truly be anomalies, the majority of it appears to be either false or irrelevant in the discussion of evolution.
Click to expand...
touche, valid point Sara(h)ng, except I am not a creationist, more of an explorer. It really seems like most of us fall into the camp that has issues with strict creationism or evolution...I think the ooparts site has some interesting information but also tends to place them squarely in the wacko camp in many minds.

And I know I am as guilty as any in diverting, sidetracking or otherwise hijacking a thread, but do think Sara(h)ng has a hugely valid point. This thread is for the exploration of evidence relating to the creationist model, not denegrating it, not supporting evolution... it would be nice to abide...to that end

halos true origin perspective insights connections and design
 
here is a model from someone. this is not my personal beliefs on it & i dont feel i need to prove creation to anyone because that is the same thing as trying to prove there is a Creator & i feel that is the ultimate objective for this topic.

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm

How can creation science be real science if it involves God?


Creation science is the result of objective science for many beginning with an agnostic premise. Today's atheistic, naturalistic bias in science forces all explanations to be natural regardless of the evidence. Accepting the conclusion of intelligent design does not hinder investigation into creation. It in fact enhances it. Creation scientists investigate the created physical world to understand its design and to explain the properties of the material and forces that make up the creation. The foundation principles of modern science today was developed by creationists.


Physical evidence cannot provide absolute certainty of knowing things. Physical evidence can be used to test the plausibility or error in explanations of physical phenomena. But physical evidence cannot be used to establish absolute knowledge of anything. Why? Because there is more that we do not know than which we do know. Everyday new discoveries are made that change our understanding of the world. For example, in a 1999 issue of The Scientist, the discovery of brain mesenchyme cells was reported. Such cells are undifferentiated and can be used to generate new brain tissue. This dispelled decades of belief that brain cells in adults do not generate new growth. What else do we not know and awaits our discovery?
Click to expand...


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top