Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Audacity]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

Except for Gap Creationism.Gap Theory creationism makes evolution wrong and would say alot of the evidence evolution uses in science points to a much,much more believable theory than evolution based on alot of the same evidence in the earth.

We would say the evidence in noway is evidence life evolves but is instead evidence of a former world that was on this earth with totally different kinds of life in it than this world we live in now has and there was a Gap inbetween the former world and this world we now live in and the evidence in the earth confirms there was a former world that perished before God made this world we now live in on the earth.

Same evidence,different theory. But also these ancient mysterious places on the earth around the earth both on the land and some now at the bottom of the ocean,these also confirm a former world did indeed exist that perished just like the bible tells us.

My challenge to creationism/creationists was not aimed at anything other than the focus of evolution (biological evolution): the manner by which we have come to have millions of species of life on earth. Want to talk about the geological evolution of the earth, or the evolution of the universe, or something else, then I'm not interested. So, how does gap creationism go about establishing its claim that all the species we have on earth were put here individually by god?

[Audacity]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

With Young Earth Creationists (Creationism), it's more Scripture is considered a foundational source of knowledge.
What they mean by "Scripture" is ultimately a particular interpretation of Scripture, generally the popular one advocated in their church, people they respect or the most vocal. Indeed, Creationists (Young Earth) are some of the most vocalised in churches and in intensity.

If you understand that Scripture, their interpretation thereof, is considered as foundational truth, then you'll understand that evolution isn't even on their radar. It's not that their position wins by default, it's that evolution doesn't even register to begin with.

Then why do they continually take on evolution and its principles?

........On Answers in Genesis' opening page on creationism, "evolution" is mentioned seven times.

........On the Institute for Creation Research's page "Tenets of creationism," "evolution" is brought up ten times.

........On Creation Today's website tagged under "Articles: creationism", "evolution" is mentioned twice in its promotion ........for its anti-evolution video "Evolution is Impossible."

........On Creation Research Society's home page "evolution" is mentioned twice.

........On Creation.com's topic page "biology," "evolution" is mentioned 16 times.

So then, many Creationists don't see a need to disprove evolution, they'll just poke fun at it.

But this is their form of disproving it: poking fun at it. What else have they got? Certainly no evidence; although, some do resort to pseudoscience. And don't kid yourself in thinking that many creationists don't see a real need in disproving evolution. It's one of the reasons they continually fight to get creationism into the science curriculums of public schools.

The basic fear is that if people, children in particular, see how science has successfully disputed what the Bible says (their interpenetration of it, anyway) then it leaves the other "truths" of Bible suspect. And doubt ain't good when you're trying to make a sale or keep customers.

[Philip]

Want to talk about the geological evolution of the earth, or the evolution of the universe, or something else, then I'm not interested. So, how does gap creationism go about establishing its claim that all the species we have on earth were put here individually by god?

Of COURSE people want to only discuss evolution - as IF it occurred (simple forms to man), then it was a secondary and dependent process - and would have begun WAY after what should be the far more crucial event - and thus the much more important question: How did a universe and all its necessary elements, that previously did not exist, suddenly come into existence without an intelligent cause, AND how is it possible that it did so with such breathtaking complexity, stupendous design and functionality, all of which appeared within moments of the Big Bang's beginning - instantly operating with astounding precision, power and scale?

Any supposed evolutionary processes would have come into play nearly 11 billion years after what the real issue is: What (or Who) could possibly have created all things, processes and conditions for evolution to have occurred. As, at the very moment of the universe's birth, we see the exact opposite of randomness. And yet, people want to argue about supposed unguided and random processes that would have been entirely dependent Upon the many and necessary individual and interactive mechanisms and designs that would have proceeded it by many billions of years. Explain and discuss THE CAUSE OF essential and INSTANTLY appearing, immensely complex things, instead of engaging in pointless conversations concerning asserted long-developing secondary and dependent processes (due to some prior cause) that will never prove anything in relation to the oft-asserted lack of need for a Creator.

[Kurieuo]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

With Young Earth Creationists (Creationism), it's more Scripture is considered a foundational source of knowledge.
What they mean by "Scripture" is ultimately a particular interpretation of Scripture, generally the popular one advocated in their church, people they respect or the most vocal. Indeed, Creationists (Young Earth) are some of the most vocalised in churches and in intensity.

If you understand that Scripture, their interpretation thereof, is considered as foundational truth, then you'll understand that evolution isn't even on their radar. It's not that their position wins by default, it's that evolution doesn't even register to begin with.

Then why do they continually take on evolution and its principles?

........On Answers in Genesis' opening page on creationism, "evolution" is mentioned seven times.

........On the Institute for Creation Research's page "Tenets of creationism," "evolution" is brought up ten times.

........On Creation Today's website tagged under "Articles: creationism", "evolution" is mentioned twice in its promotion ........for its anti-evolution video "Evolution is Impossible."

........On Creation Research Society's home page "evolution" is mentioned twice.

........On Creation.com's topic page "biology," "evolution" is mentioned 16 times.

My comments were in relation to the mindset of such individual Creationists, and not Young Earth organisations which dedicate themselves to promoting their resources and interpretation of Genesis, declaring anything else to be heresy.

There's no way I can or would defend places like AiG and such, since I personally find them to be purposefully misleading and damaging to Christians and Christianity as such.

If your argument here is that YEC organisations appear to prove themselves right by trying disprove and throw mud on other positions, then I agree with you that such does seem to be a big part of their strategy.

[Audacity]

Want to talk about the geological evolution of the earth, or the evolution of the universe, or something else, then I'm not interested. So, how does gap creationism go about establishing its claim that all the species we have on earth were put here individually by god?

Of COURSE people want to only discuss evolution - as IF it occurred (simple forms to man), then it was a secondary and dependent process - and would have been WAY after what is the far more crucial question - how a universe and all necessary elements that previously did not exist - came into existence without an intelligent cause, AND that it did so with the design and functionality that appeared within moments of the Big Bang's beginning - instantly operating with astounding precision, power and scale? Supposed evolutionary processes would have come into play nearly 11 billion years after what the real issue is - what (or Who) could possibly have created all things, processes and conditions for evolution to have occurred. So, at the very moment of the universe's birth, we see the exact opposite of randomness. And yet, people want to argue about supposed unguided and random processes that would have been entirely dependent on the Unfathomable and necessary individual and interactive mechanisms and designs that would have proceeded it by many billions of years. Explain and discuss THE CAUSE OF essential and INSTANTLY appearing, immensely complex things, not pointless conversations concerning long-developing secondary and dependent processes (upon some prior cause) that will never prove anything in relation to the oft-asserted lack of need for a Creator.

Here's the issue. Science says the reason we have the species we do is because they evolved, an operation they term evolution. Some religious folk disagree and say the reason we have the species we do is because god created each and everyone of them separately, an operation they call creationism. This, and only this, is the issue making up the creation v. evolution controversy. For the evolutionist, the issue at hand DOES NOT involve origins. It doesn't care if life evolved from some primordial soup or if god kick-started it all. It ONLY cares about the whys and wherefores that account for the variety of life on earth. It does not care about the origin of the universe, the stars, or the planets. It ONLY cares about the whys and wherefores that account for the variety of life on earth. AND, it doesn't care if creationists like to talk about the origins of life, the universe, the stars, or the planets. Want to talk about these? Go right ahead, but don't expect the evolutionist to necessarily chime in.

So, when I said "Make Your Case for Creationism" the case is the contention that god put each and every species on earth separately.

Now, if you're unable to hold focus on this somewhat narrow aspect of biological science then I suggest you create your own thread to discuss everything you've brought up, because it doesn't fit in here.

[Philip]

Well, Audacity, per the theist focus of this forum, why do you care about evolution? As well, your question asked for "a case for creationism" - which obviously did not start with evolution, and which would have required things far more impossible, certainly without a first Cause for the many complex things that did not exist in one moment, and yet in the very next one, powerfully and brilliantly did. And THAT, my friend, is an especially powerful evidence for Creation.

Also, you didn't ask for a "case for EVOLUTION." So, why do you care so much about evolution if you can't even remotely explain how the many complex elements that would have been necessary for that to have been possible even came to exist, as they didn't previously?. Do you believe things can come into existence with immediate design and complex function by themselves? Do you not realize that something had to pre-exist everything else AND that it had to be eternal, highly intelligent and poweful - call it whatever you like? Do you realize NOTHING can create itself - so EVERY physical thing, design, process, and function, which immediately burst into existence, had to have a source that created them. How much more powerful evidence do you want for "creation?" As arguing over evolution, for the purposes of this forum, are irrelevant.

I do hope you realize the necessity of what immediately came into existence, how they organized, the incredible specicifity within their respective functionalities - that without them - that no evolution would have been possible, AND that those things were everything but random, with all elements functioning together with incomprehensible consistency and order. So, to begin with, to assert evolution was blind and random is an obvious denial of what came before life. Which is why Christians believing in evolution will tell you of the impossibility of evolution occurring through unguided or undesigned things.

Before about 543 million years ago, scientists say only simple lifeforms existed - primitive sponges, jellyfish, etc. Then, in a tiny window of 2 - 3 million years, perhaps less, 40 or more animal phyla suddenly appeared, including 24 or so of the 30 that presently exist. So, the Cambrian happened in the blink of an eye, at least by asserted evolutionary time - all with fully functioning predator/prey relationships. Unguided evolutionary processes could not account for this - unless you buy into evolution hitting its equivalent of a fast-foward switch. I won't even go into the massive lack of evidence for transitional forms. And over the last 540 million years, about 15 phyla have disappeared. The various asserted evolutionary scenarios can't account for this, as there simply wasn't near enough time to account for the Cambrian. So, evolution supposedly ramped up into hyper speed (in less than 3 million years???!!!), and then suddenly reversed its progress with the drop in phyla? Regardless, we know that the very beginnings of the universe were exceptionally complex in design and function - despite what one might assert about the supposed random, unguided processes of evolution. And the complexity of higher forms comes into existence virtually overnight, by evolutionary measures.

Nevertheless, evolution has NOTHING to assert about the Creation vs. pure naturalism argument, because it would have been entirely dependent upon immensely complex things that immediately came into existence - and those things HAD to have a cause!

[Audacity]

Well, Audacity, per the theist focus of this forum, why do you care about evolution?

Irrelevant.

As well, your question asked for "a case for creationism" - which does not start with evolution, but things far more impossible without a first Cause of all things that did not exist in one moment, and yet in the very next one, powerfully and brilliantly did. And THAT, my friend, is an especially powerful evidence for Creation.

Not evidence, but mere claim.

Also, you didn't ask for a "case for EVOLUTION." So, why do you care so much about evolution if you can't even remotely explain how the many complex elements that would have been necessary for that to have been possible even came to exist, as they didn't previously?. Do you believe things can come into existence with immediate design and complex function by themselves? Do you not realize that something had to pre-exist everything else AND that it had to be eternal, highly intelligent and poweful - call it whatever you like? Do you realize NOTHING can create itself - so EVERY physical thing, design, process, and function, which immediately burst into existence, had to have a source that created them. How much more powerful evidence do you want for "creation?"

Irrelevant

[Kurieuo]

Here's the issue. Science says the reason we have the species we do is because they evolved, an operation they term evolution.

It seems you are under some misunderstanding as to what "Science" really is.
A scientific theory, no matter how well established, can only ever be provisional and tentative.
You might say within science a lot of evidence is highly supportive of the ToE, but you'll never have "Science says..." in dogmatic fashion. While people can be dogmatic, science itself as an enterprise of free inquiry isn't.

As Satoshi Kanazawa writes in his article, Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

[EssentialSacrifice]

http://sixdayscience.com/2016/03/10/fir ... espond-16/

this is one of a dozen articles available for the dispute of ToE being anything other than a theory ... i suspect we will find, as we move on in our lives that ToE will be seen as a part of the magnificent story of life here on earth. There are too many suspects "in the wings " of scientific discovery to expect any singular theory to be completely correct.

Except for the 10 commandments ... nothing is set in stone ...

[Audacity]

Here's the issue. Science says the reason we have the species we do is because they evolved, an operation they term evolution.

It seems you are under some misunderstanding as to what "Science" really is.

No misunderstanding whatsoever. As the old adage goes, "Proof is only good for mathematics, logic, and liquor." I'm quite familiar with the scientific method. All I'm looking for is someone to address my request. Simple as that. Nothing more, but what I've been getting are persistent irrelevancies. If a person can't make a case for creationism, as I explained it in my 9:28 pm (my time) Sun Mar 27th post, then I'm not interested. Focusing seems to be a real problem around here.

BTW, why aren't posts numbered?



.

[Philip]

Audacity: No misunderstanding whatsoever. I'm quite familiar with the scientific method. All I'm looking for is someone to address my request. Simple as that.

Bull! Presented with what happened at the moment of the Big Bang, refute it! Explain how it wasn't massively complex, where time, dimension, matter, space and ALL physical things came into interactive, powerful mechanical, physical interactive complexity. Explain how everything that came after wasn't essential to any supposed evolutionary processes, laying down massively complex conditions, all that. The problem isn't that you weren't answered. The problem is you don't like the answer and you have absolutely nothing about it to refute.

More evidence for Creation, a listing of a huge number of massive complex things that only a Great Intelligence could account for:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/rtb-des ... ndium-2009

Just look at the massively individually and NECESSARILY interactive complexity of so many parameters and extraordinary systems on the list:

Part 1: Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe — lists 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life's existence.

Part 2: Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life—describes 402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life's existence. This list includes comment on how a slight increase or decrease in the value of each characteristic would impact that possibility.

Part 3: Probability Estimates for Features Required by Various Life Forms—identifies 922 characteristics of a galaxy and of a planetary system physical life depends on and offers conservative estimates of the probability that any galaxy or planetary system would manifest such characteristics. This list is divided into three parts, based on differing requirements for various life-forms and their duration.

Part 4: Probability Estimates on Different Size Scales for the Features Required by Advanced Life—presents a breakdown of the characteristics required by advanced life (from Part 3) as they must occur, separately, in the galaxy cluster, galaxy, star, planetary system, planet, moon, planetary surface, and ecosystem where advanced life exists.

IF life wasn't created, then these many things (on the list) 1) either created and then assembled and designed themselves, or 2) some eternally existing thing or things, through time and chance, assembled them blindly and randomly. Which makes more sense? If you believe those kind of odds, that these things could emerge from randomness - no matter after how long - you shouldn't flinch at withdrawing your life's savings and heading straight to Vegas!

[abelcainsbrother]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

But, everyone believes in evolution. Yes, even YECs.
What's the point of this game?

Not that creationist believe in evolution, but almost invariably their case for creationism involves bringing in evolution or its principles, the presumption being that if they can disprove evolution then creationism wins by default. Check out any creationist web page that makes an argument for creationism and see how long it takes before it alludes to evolution or its principles.

Except for Gap Creationism.Gap Theory creationism makes evolution wrong and would say alot of the evidence evolution uses in science points to a much,much more believable theory than evolution based on alot of the same evidence in the earth.

We would say the evidence in noway is evidence life evolves but is instead evidence of a former world that was on this earth with totally different kinds of life in it than this world we live in now has and there was a Gap inbetween the former world and this world we now live in and the evidence in the earth confirms there was a former world that perished before God made this world we now live in on the earth.

Same evidence,different theory. But also these ancient mysterious places on the earth around the earth both on the land and some now at the bottom of the ocean,these also confirm a former world did indeed exist that perished just like the bible tells us.

My challenge to creationism/creationists was not aimed at anything other than the focus of evolution (biological evolution): the manner by which we have come to have millions of species of life on earth. Want to talk about the geological evolution of the earth, or the evolution of the universe, or something else, then I'm not interested. So, how does gap creationism go about establishing its claim that all the species we have on earth were put here individually by god?

I know this is typical of people who have drank the kool-aid of evolution and that is reject anything that goes against it.It is evolution that cannot answer your question regardless if you reject creationism.No evolutionists can tell you how all species we have on earth were put here or even got here.Yet you give them a pass,but once all of the evidence is laid out Gap creationism is more believable based on the evidence than the theory of evolutionand it confirms the bible and this biblical interpretation.

Until you stop giving evolutionists a pass about the question you asked why should I tell you how Gap creationism explains it? You're not really serious about knowing the truth when you give them a pass. You should be demanding scientists to give you answers to your question. Based on the evidence in the earth Gap creationism is already more believable than evolution so we can say our answer to how life got here is correct also.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Audacity wrote:
My challenge to creationism/creationists was not aimed at anything other than the focus of evolution (biological evolution): the manner by which we have come to have millions of species of life on earth. Want to talk about the geological evolution of the earth, or the evolution of the universe, or something else, then I'm not interested. So, how does gap creationism go about establishing its claim that all the species we have on earth were put here individually by god?

I know this will not answer the challenge to it's final degree ...but it's knocking on the door ... ToE is not bullet proof by any means, but this article is also of no direct benefit to any specific creationist ideal ... but creation did happen and has been leaking out it's secrets how slowly but surely. and, as in science and life in general...
if you can, hang around, there's more to come

http://www.reasons.org/articles/article ... odiversity

[crochet1949]

Referring back to March 26 / Audacity's comment ---- there Are or Were 8.7 billions species on earth. Based on What? IF that is based on various 'thing's' developing from other various 'things' throughout millions / billions of years -- well-- possibly. However -- as has been stated -- Genesis, being the book Of beginnings, does Not tell us numbers. Just that the various kinds of animal life came to be on various days of the week of creation. Which results in Speculation on Everyone's part. The ark carried a male and female of different Kinds.

God warned mankind through Noah that destruction was coming. It took about 120 years or so to build that ark. Noah and his family were the only righteous people existing at the time. Righteous meaning that they believed in God and obeyed, followed Him. God does Not Force anyone to believe in Him. He does Not Force anyone to Follow Him. But He Does give us warnings and tells us the results of Not believing / following Him.

Same thing Now days -- except we have all of God's Word to read and accept or Not. The cross is our entrance to the ark / heaven. We have preachers, teachers, neighbors who Are believers here to tell everyone of heaven or the alternative.

So -- it's Not a supposedly inefficient God, but lots' of unbelieving people. They laughed at Noah back Then just as people laugh at God and His provisions for mankind Now.

There are a number of other posts since yours' , but I wanted to address your comments.

[crochet1949]

I have Another question -- referring back to Genesis creation -- And the evening and the morning were the 1st day and so forth. And evening and a morning constitute a 24 hr day. So Where Did a 24 hr day come From?
At least in This country -- we've had a 6 day work week with a 7th day to rest for Forever. Growing up Everything closed at noon Saturday and Sunday was the 'day of worship'. Protestant churches Still operate that way. Actually -- Sunday worship took the place of Saturday worship because of Christ being resurrected on the 1st day of the week.
Genesis 2:1-2 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished . And on the 7th day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the 7th day from all His work which He had done.

People - researchers - have figured out how to breed animals / bigger / smaller/ various looks / but they Haven't been able to 'make / create' any New things. Animals are either 'complete' or they can't survive -- 'life' is lived day by day and generation by generation.

God has created us with common sense -- we need to use it more often.