Evidence for God from Science

As a Young Earth creationist believer, I've long been interested in what reputable creation scientists have to say to explain many of the mysterious creatures that conventional science has yet to embrace, or even study, such as Bigfoot (or it's cousins), the Lochness Monster, and other such creatures. Seeing the hundreds of testimonies of what seem to be fairly credible citizens, I can empathize with them in terms of trying to testify the Truth of God to an unbeliever. So, how would you suggest that I use the sound rationale of Creation to even Young Earth believers to explain these phenomena, let alone to secular Darwinists.

One other observation. I've been watching the History Channel's series, Monster Quest, amongst other documentaries regarding this subject and I notice a conspicuous characteristic, especially with recent episodes. They seem to be getting closer and closer to very plausible explanations to more and more mysterious animals, which correlates with Jesus' end times prophecy that information will increase exponentially. While that last tidbit may not have anything to do with Creation, it is noteworthy in the context of that prophecy.

Thanks,
George Lea

UnkleBuck wrote:As a Young Earth creationist believer, I've long been interested in what reputable creation scientists have to say to explain many of the mysterious creatures that conventional science has yet to embrace, or even study, such as Bigfoot (or it's cousins), the Lochness Monster, and other such creatures. Seeing the hundreds of testimonies of what seem to be fairly credible citizens, I can empathize with them in terms of trying to testify the Truth of God to an unbeliever. So, how would you suggest that I use the sound rationale of Creation to even Young Earth believers to explain these phenomena, let alone to secular Darwinists.

One other observation. I've been watching the History Channel's series, Monster Quest, amongst other documentaries regarding this subject and I notice a conspicuous characteristic, especially with recent episodes. They seem to be getting closer and closer to very plausible explanations to more and more mysterious animals, which correlates with Jesus' end times prophecy that information will increase exponentially. While that last tidbit may not have anything to do with Creation, it is noteworthy in the context of that prophecy.

Thanks,
George Lea

I would say that bigfoot, the lochness monster and the likes are bunk.... Sorry for the cheap explanation...

The Loch Ness monster is an impossibility, and doesn't exist. There have been numerous radar, sonar, and other such scans, technology good enough to see every single thing under the water, and reported no monsters, just fish and sunken boats. The lake Loch Ness isn't that big, in fact Lake Michigan is a little bigger, as such there wouldn't be a big enough food supply to sustain such a creature.

Bogfoot is theoretically possible, but I doubt its existance as well. If bigfoot was real, we would've found a dead one by now. Yes, many species of animal have eluded us for a long time, but those animals have one of two things going for them. Very few people would ever spot them as they're pretty close to other species and the only way you'd recognise them is to be an expert in the field of biology to spot something that nobody knows about. The other explanation is they live in the ocean, which is far bigger and most animals live where no human sees them. And note, the ocean explanation isn't to give the Loch Ness monster credibility, as Loch Ness is a lake, not an ocean, and most species of fish aren't sixty foot monsters.

Bigfoot has neither of those explanations going for them. Everybody knows what bigfoot looks like, a big human-like ape, and as we all know, bigfoot lives in forests of America, not in the ocean. Note that not a single ape is known to be native to North America, we don't even have skeletons of one.

How does one explain these creatures? Well it's quite simple really. Bigfoot is a man in a monkey suit, or some guys walking with special shoes to leave tracks. Loch Ness monster is a chunk of wood, or a capsized boat. They're urban legends, nothing more. I'm sorry, but there's no evidence of their existance that can't easily be explained, nor is there any reason to believe in them.

UnkleBuck wrote:As a Young Earth creationist believer, I've long been interested in what reputable creation scientists have to say to explain many of the mysterious creatures that conventional science has yet to embrace, or even study, such as Bigfoot (or it's cousins), the Lochness Monster, and other such creatures. Seeing the hundreds of testimonies of what seem to be fairly credible citizens, I can empathize with them in terms of trying to testify the Truth of God to an unbeliever. So, how would you suggest that I use the sound rationale of Creation to even Young Earth believers to explain these phenomena, let alone to secular Darwinists.

One other observation. I've been watching the History Channel's series, Monster Quest, amongst other documentaries regarding this subject and I notice a conspicuous characteristic, especially with recent episodes. They seem to be getting closer and closer to very plausible explanations to more and more mysterious animals, which correlates with Jesus' end times prophecy that information will increase exponentially. While that last tidbit may not have anything to do with Creation, it is noteworthy in the context of that prophecy.

Thanks,
George Lea

I think you should read national enquirer for tips on presentation.

Also note that what I just said about the monsters doesn't apply to God. As God is not only immortal, but there is only one, and He isn't a physical being, He wouldn't leave behind dead.

UnkleBuck wrote:As a Young Earth creationist believer, I've long been interested in what reputable creation scientists have to say to explain many of the mysterious creatures that conventional science has yet to embrace, or even study, such as Bigfoot (or it's cousins), the Lochness Monster, and other such creatures.

I think the main reason conventional science has yet to embrace these mysterious creatures is due to not being able to find any of them. I suspect many conventional scientists would be falling over themselves to embrace and study these creatures if someone could find one to embrace and study.

The hardest thing to believe about these creatures is that we simply can't find them. Bigfoot isn't small, hence the name, and should be (since he's been around apparently for decades) easily found through others of his own species. The same applies to Lochness. This isn't a creationist problem, because nothing would change even if we were to find one or both of these animals.

Now this would make a good monster movie. Bigfoot versus the Lochness monster.

My personal opinion is that "Bigfoot" actually has a slight chance of existing within very remote areas- if Bigfoot is a North-American ground-sloth.

Mainly because the descriptions I've heard and seen of "Bigfoot" are near identical to those of the Ground Sloth: mistakable as a primate, claws... big... though that's also attributable to a bear. If you want my opinion, either it's either some species of sloth reported to go extinct 500(five-hundred) years ago, or bears.

Personally, I think "Bigfoot" is most likely a bunch of bear sightings. There are certainly a bunch of reported sightings, but the only ones with actual evidence that are ineligible are proven to be fake. I think it's safe the other ones are regular wildlife. Though it's possible they're ground sloth sightings... I'm not saying it's likely, though.

As for "Nessy", I haven't really thought about it. Descriptions resemble a species of dinosaur that went extinct like eight million years ago, but so do various creatures that have been found that were said to be extinct for half a billion years. I was never really interested in it, since I don't live anywhere near the British Isles.

This is my opinion. I wouldn't say you should pay it any serious attention unless you're going to do a bit of research.

believ3r wrote:The Loch Ness monster is an impossibility, and doesn't exist.

An impossibility? I beg to differ: it is impossible to prove Nessie's non-existence, just as it is impossible to prove God's non-existence. The question is: why is it necessary to spend so much time and effort attempting to disprove God's existence (which, as I've said, is impossible) when it's OK to dismiss Nessie out of hand?

It's true that there has so far been zero evidence to support the existence of either, so I'd be interested to hear whether people think the existence of one is more probable than the other and, if so, which of the two is the more probable and why.

ManOfScience wrote:It's true that there has so far been zero evidence to support the existence of either, so I'd be interested to hear whether people think the existence of one is more probable than the other and, if so, which of the two is the more probable and why.

^ A false assertion.

ageofknowledge wrote:A false assertion.

To what were you referring? The lack of proof of Nessie and/or God? Perhaps I should have added a word to my assertion: "It's true that there has so far been zero credible* evidence to support the existence of either."

* Meaning evidence that's stood up to scrutiny. Sure, there have been purported photos of Nessie, but none has so far proved to be real after investigation. The same applies to alleged evidence of God.

Before you need a creationist explanation (or any explanation) for bigfoot and nessie, you need to be sure that they exist. Carl Sagan perhaps put it best when talking about the invisible, intangible dragon living in his neighbour's garage:

Carl Sagan wrote:Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

That's the key part - to reject the dragon/nessie/bigfoot hypotheses but to always remain open to future evidence.

ManOfScience wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:A false assertion.

To what were you referring? The lack of proof of Nessie and/or God? Perhaps I should have added a word to my assertion: "It's true that there has so far been zero credible* evidence to support the existence of either."

* Meaning evidence that's stood up to scrutiny. Sure, there have been purported photos of Nessie, but none has so far proved to be real after investigation. The same applies to alleged evidence of God.

^ a false assertion. Repeating there is zero evidence for God doesn't make your false assertion any more true. God's presence in the world is evidenced in a thousand different ways, and His divine voice speaks all the time in innumerable wys; however what is obvious to some is completely hidden from others. To unbelievers like yourself, for example, God seems nowhere... silent.

The God of theism can be established by sound reasoning and many of humanity's greatest minds throughout history right up to and including this very day are Christians engaged in exactly that. Further, He is distinct from all other views of God, since there can only be one indivisible, infinite, necessary, absolutely perfect Uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. And since metaphysical theism is a precondition of evangelical theology, the viability of this precondition of evangelicalism is well supported by numerous lines of evidence. To be sure, objections can and have been raised, but none have been successful. Databases of objections against theistic arguments exist with competent rebuttals. Would you like to see one or be one?

ageofknowledge wrote:a false assertion.

Pointless discussing this with you, if you're unwilling (or unable) to back up your claims of "false assertions" with any detail or facts.