Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Lief Erikson]

Meanwhile, on a much smaller scale. If I can prove to you the accuracy of many historical events that were described, and show you that these battles happened, that these people existed, etc., it increases the likelihood that God exists, because his existance and his actions were much more important to the writers than the historical details (and the writings were written in a manner that seems intended to be historical). Geaneologies also are written into these accounts, and careful historical details that would not have been written by a myth maker. Remember again that these were recording people that were referenced in other material of the time, and corroborated with those accounts. Various geaneologies in the Bible frequently pass on back through these Old Testament Biblical characters. A complete list of Old Testament kings has been found as well, which matches strongly with the Bible's version.

The people of the New Testament time believed what they believed for a reason. They weren't basing everything upon a book of myths (the Torah), but were basing their beliefs upon the founding writings of the founders of their nation.

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I've also seen many programs on the History and Discovery channel on just how historically accurate the bible is. What I got from those is basically that they were just loosely based in fact - some places were off, some people didn't exist, some people's roles in the bible were not the same as in real life, the dates in the bible were off by many years and credited to the wrong kings, stuff like that.

Virtually all of the post-Solomon events are accounted for. If you're talking about Solomon and older events being mismatched with the Egyptian chronology, there is a compelling theory I can offer which would solve that. However, I don't feel I should, firstly because it's primarily my Dad's theory, as yet unpublished, and partly because this is the wrong thread for it.

Originally posted by Ruinel
Have any of you created information? If you have, then you may lump yourself in with those that have faked the information. If you have not, then you are removed from those that, IMO, lie to further their cause.

It is not Hindus that falsify evidence for the Christian Creation Theory, it is Christians.

(Since HOBBIT addressed the other question, I'll let you answer him.)

Ruinel, you get bad eggs in every group. Remember the Inquisition? If you were objecting to something about Christianity, you should object to that, rather than the lies that some have made. Various other groups have also tortured people for religious reasons, and Atheists have invented Intermediate species before in the past to corroborate their claims. Christians are not particularly guilty, and I submit that the vast majority of our information is accurate.

My point is, it's pointless to complain about something that occurs in every group, as if it's a specific problem you have with Christianity, or as if Christianity was full of this problem to a much greater degree than other groups.

Unless you can provide quotes showing a huge system of lying and misinformation, I don't find much point in your remark, as far as this debate is concerned.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
though there is a huge amount of Creationist scientific evidence as well- just check out http://evolution-facts.org/1evich06b.htm)...

Interesting site, speaking of creationist lies, distortions, and misconceptions. Just the one page on the age of the earth contains so many false statements it would take hours to address them all. Why is it people can ignore mountains of data that, time after time, support ToE, but they cling to some badly supported pseudo-fact with the reliability of the bigfoot video as some great proof?

The Mississippi river meanders and does not prograde in a straight line.

There are plenty of examples of meteorites found in quarries of sedimentary rock.

The magnetic field of the earth varies and does not degrade in a a linear fashion.

The reliance by creationists on the technique of deselecting data until they can project a favorable trend is much the same as if I were to claim that at my growth rate between 1 and 18 I would be 30 feet tall by age 60.

The historical value of the bible is limited to royal family linneages and military events. These would be difficult for comtemporary chroniclers to fabricate beyond simple exageration. That hardly validates the description of events with no witnesses which occurred before man's existence. It also provides no validity to metaphorical interpretation of the scripture, which is purely subjective and non-factual.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If God exists, these stories lose a great deal of the likelihood that they are myth. So it is only based upon the assumption that God isn't real that these events are myth, which means you're basing the fact that the Bible is myth upon your own belief that God doesn't exist.

That is not so. God does not need to exist for history to happen. Just because someone wrote a story about a stuffed bear that talks to a boy named Christopher Robin does not mean that Winnie the Poo really exists as a sentient being.

The bible proves only one thing, that someone in history existed to write the story as they saw fit to write it from their own primitive and religion-biased perspective. It proves nothing more than that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about providing evidence supporting the Theory of Creation, not about whether the bible is historically accurate.

Someone at work gave me that "Case for Christ" book as a gift. I dumped it in the trash. She was 'overly zealous' about bringing me 'back to Jesus'. I'm glad she doesn't work there anymore. She was a pain in the ass.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
...and Atheists have invented Intermediate species before in the past to corroborate their claims.

Excuse me? Invented? There are many fossils of intermediate species. I believe that BoP/Sheeana has already posted that information either here or in the 'Evolution in Schools' thread. And what makes you think these were Atheists? You are mistaken.

Unless you can provide quotes showing a huge system of lying and misinformation, I don't find much point in your remark, as far as this debate is concerned.

Cirdan has answered that. See your own link.

BTW, Cirdan, did you know that the famous Big Foot footage was revealed as a hoax?

[Cirdan]

Well, they *were* big feet.... big FAKE feet!.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about providing evidence supporting the Theory of Creation, not about whether the bible is historically accurate.

The fact that most of the Bible is considered accurate should cause one to consider more carefully what is written in it on more important subjects, rather than simply choosing to disbelieve them. That was my Creationist point on the Bible. Even though I could go into the many sources of corroborating data, you are right, Ruinel. I guess I should leave that subject be. Merely remember, as I wrote in that lawyer case above from "The Case for Christ", the accuracy of details and the facts of the story is relevant to knowing how much credence we should give to the unproven parts of it. Just as finding numerous flaws that can be proven to be incorrect can tear apart an account, so finding numerous supportive details can bolster the assumed accuracy of that account.


However, you're right. The Bible's validity is a huge topic on its own, and the accuracy of the later parts, though it is one evidence, is not one of the strongest ones for Creationism. I'll let it lie.


I won't be able to come back here to Entmoot for another week- I can only get here on weekends, but I have enjoyed posting and reading the various responses. Good night to you all .


Oh yes, one more thing. Cirdan, if you want me to accept your rebuttal of the Creationist arguments, please back up your statements that they're lying with quotes, professional analysis, things aside from merely your saying it's so. I as yet have no opinion one way or the other on some of their arguments, and am open to being convinced. Talk to you more later!

~Lief

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]...the accuracy of details and the facts of the story is relevant to knowing how much credence we should give to the unproven parts of it. Just as finding numerous flaws that can be proven to be incorrect can tear apart an account, so finding numerous supportive details can bolster the assumed accuracy of that account... The Bible's validity is a huge topic on its own, and the accuracy of the later parts, though it is one evidence, is not one of the strongest ones for Creationism....

My sister reads books classified as 'historical romances'. They are books based on facts of history but with fictional characters with fictional lives. Do the facts of history presented in the book make the book non-fiction? No, it does not. Using historical referrences within the bible does not validate the creation theory any more than those paperback stories are validated by the sprinklings of historical fact.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
EDIT: one observation on my part... Christians are so eager to present their theory of Creation as truth that they are willing to falsify information in order to promote that theory. I find that disturbing.

Please don't make massive generalizations like that if you care about accuracy. I think that "some creationist scientists" (and I would add "as well as some evolutionists scientists") would be more accurate, as well as more considerate to those participating on this thread, don't you? I've given evolutionist scientists the benefit of the doubt over and over on this thread when I've said again and again that "evolution is a theory developed by intelligent scientists", when my actual opinion is not as favorable. Are you willing to do the same, instead of making unfounded generalizations? Unless of course you're willing to start research and make a massive list of Christians, who also believe in creationism (not all do), of whom it has been proven that they've falsified information.

Do you find the falsifications generated by evolutionists disturbing? A couple of examples off the top of my head: Haeckel's inaccurate embryo drawings ("inaccurate", to say the least - personally, it's my opinion it was deliberate falsification, given some of the circumstances. Are you familiar with that one?); "Piltdown" man; and that recent faked fossil that was in National Geographic and later revealed to be a fraud.

Also, things like "Nebraska man", which don't appear to be frauds, but are instead cases of extrapolation carried to really incredible extremes - this "man" was based on a single tooth, which was later determined to have belonged to a pig.

Let's just try to "stick to the facts, Ma'am" - I'll let reasonable statements pass, but really! "Christians are so eager to present their theory of Creation as truth that they are willing to falsify information in order to promote that theory. I find that disturbing." - I find that disturbing, and had to comment.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The reliance by creationists on the technique of deselecting data until they can project a favorable trend is much the same as if I were to claim that at my growth rate between 1 and 18 I would be 30 feet tall by age 60.

A perfect description of the way evolutionists deselect data and project trends in coming up with .... macroevolution.

Deselecting data - there has been NO macroevolution observed (of the type required by the theory - changes extending to genus and on up).

Favorable trends - observing variation within type (which ALWAYS yields the same type, just a different percentage of traits, based on existing traits already present in the species), evolutionist scientists have made an extrapolation, based on ZERO observed data, that the changes can go further up the line so that fish-like creatures can produce both fish and men.

[Rían]

(and I'm on page 6 of my summary discussion of creationism data, which I'm developing offline - I have 2 more sub-topics to add, then I'll slim it down a bit before I post it. It's an attempt to present a more comprehensive, but top-level, summary of evidence supporting creationism, instead of hitting small sub-topics one at a time and getting lost in details. We can continue to deal with details, but I wanted to get a more top-level picture presented.)

ps - Cirdan, any news on your geology summary, or have you just been too busy? (I certainly understand that!)

[HOBBIT]

wait, has any real evidence for creation been posting yet or is everyone still just beating evolution?

[Ruinel]

errr... 18 pages and still ... nothing.

[Rían]

Yes, I posted some strong fossil evidence, esp. in 2 areas - in the Cambrian, the existence of COMPLEXITY, and the existence of forms seen today. Both of these are strongly in favor of creationism, as well as strongly against evolutionism. We then got tied up in detailed discussion, and Lizra made a post where she was pretty frustrated, so I decided to back off and work on a more top-level discussion covering the many different areas that have evidence for creationism. I also took a much-needed vacation from the thread - minority-opinion posting is tiring!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
A perfect description of the way evolutionists deselect data and project trends in coming up with macroevolution.

Give one example were data is removed by a legitimate scientist to support macroevolution. You can complain about incomplete data but you've got nothing on excluded data. I can show data that disptroves the silly magetic decay theory. Do you have a bird or mammal fossil that occurs in the geologic column before the first reptile? An anomaly like that you could supply from a verifiable source would be truely news worthy.

Favorable trends - observing variation within type (which ALWAYS yields the same type, just a different percentage of traits, based on existing traits already present in the species), evolutionist scientists have made an extrapolation, based on ZERO observed data, that the changes can go further up the line so that fish-like creatures can produce both fish and men.

Statements about fish evolving into human. as if it happens in one step, are not a view anyone holds. Do you fail to see the similarities of the great apes to humans, apes to monkeys, on down the line? And yet even within similar types there are extrodinary differences that you seem to accept without complaint. You don't accept the data shown you on transitional types and ontogeny because...??? sorry but fossils are observed data. It is not absolutely necessary to see the animal alive to evaluate much of its physiology.

This notion of observation as the only method is lost on me I guess because in geology it is neccessary to look at indirect data. No one has seen the earth's core, no one has seen mountain ranges rise from nothing. But in working through a theory with a strong foundation in science, it is possible to understand phenomena outside the possibility of observation. Time and again the data confirms the theory of plate tectonics even in ways not predicted by the base theory. The same has been true of evolution. Genetics and genomics have validated the theory in ways not predicted by the theory itself. You can't do a "macroevolution test" in a lab since it requires millions of years. Indirect observation of a process that requires millions of years is a challenge, but it does not require discarding data.

Why is it creationists can't even agree on the age of the earth? No peer review. No scientific method. Faulty data and logic. The scientific community isn't some cadre of cabalists working as one either. It is a vast community of people competing to prove each other wrong, to be "more right" than the last guy. Nothing is elevated to the status of Theory without a brutal approval process. The age of the earth is agreed upon by scientists precisely because no one can disprove the results of the data. It's like the free market, the best idea wins.

And, once again, this is the thread for you to provide your data. The site LE provided was just a list of unsupported and easily refutable "ideas" (okay outright lies and misleading statements). I've already posted info about the true nature of the Mississippi delta. The other silly bits like granite being the predominant rock type in the crust (it not, basalt is) or the supposed lack of meteorites in sedimentary rocks (easy to find) I can refute on my own authority. If you want something beyond that I believe your education should be at your own expense.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - Cirdan, any news on your geology summary, or have you just been too busy? (I certainly understand that!)

I've been very busy. I'm in the middle of a remodeling project go wild and my mother-in-law died last week, so things are quite a mess around here. I come to the Moot *for* a vacation.

I did look at a few texts at one point but the scope creep kept coming into play. I get the feeling I might end up giving dissertations on sedimentary petrology, environments of depostion, stratigraphy, flow diagrams and the rest of sedimentology by stepping into this...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I've been very busy. I'm in the middle of a remodeling project go wild and my mother-in-law died last week, so things are quite a mess around here. I come to the Moot *for* a vacation.

I'm very sorry to hear that Take your time. I know what it's like to need a vacation.

[Sheeana]

Hmm, Nebraska man? As in the one discovered in 1922?

[Rían]

Hi Sheeana - I'll check the date for you while I'm at my daughter's ballet class...

In the meantime, do YOU believe in recapitulation? In your opinion, is it widely believed still? I'm just curious to hear others' opinions, because I thought recapitulation (as in "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny")wasn't still widely believed.

Also, do you believe that man (and all other animals) evolved from a single-celled entity? I just wanted to make sure of what you thought was the point of origin.

[Sheeana]

Will have to get back to you on that one, Rian as I have a class in... 7 minutes! *Yikes*

Recapitulation is not a word that I am familiar with. Is this the same as the biogenic law?

[Rían]

OK, back from ballet class -

Yes, Sheeana, the tooth was discovered in 1922.

By recapitulation and "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" I mean the idea that animals pass thru their supposed evolutionary stages during embryonic development. I believe "biogenetic law" (or "biogenic" law?) is another name for it.