This thread was created in reference to this thread. I am not asking for creationists to tear down the facts that the scientific community has proven. What I am asking for is much simpler than erasing mounds of evidence. I would like one observable fact the the bible is correct about creation. Just ONE!!! Prove to me the the earth was created 6000 years ago. Prove to me that everything came into existance all at once in its present state. Prove to me that all humans came from two with no genetic mutations at all… anything!
I’m very curious to see such evidence. I hope this thread doesn’t get missed. 
I leave the debating to the more qualified here - - and I by no means can prove anything to you. That said, I’ve been reading a bit lately about Creation and Evolution in relation to the beliefs of the Assemblies of God Church (because questions so often come up here on the SDMB about it). (I grew up going to an AG church. I do not attend any church at this time, nor have I since about 1996.)
I wish I knew how to insert a link so you just click on the blue info and go…but I don’t know how…so here’s the link if you want to copy and paste, and if you are interested in reading what the AG church has to say about Creation (this would be more for a believer, I gather, who has “faith” that God is the Creator, than to stand as “proof” positive to a non-believer seeking tangible evidence. This may end up giving you further fodder for debate or result in your creation (ha!) of a thread in the Pit!)
I wish you the best in finding your “proof”. (And if you do find it, or someone else does, please e-mail me!!! 
)
Yogini
oooooooooo I inserted a link correctly - woo hoo!! :rolleyes:
Congrats. 
Well, I’ll sum up that page’s main points…
-
Because the Bible says so
-
It was God’s intelligent plan
-
Distinct steps that “rule out” evolution
-
He had purpose
-
Because we say so
None of which are either proofs or evidence… all of them rely 100% on faith in God and the presumption that God wrote the Scripture literally, and because of the storyline of creation, it is true, which just makes no sense. The page makes pains to avoid mentioning any scientific principle and dates, especially the 6,000 year old figure.
It was interesting to read, though.
Isn’t this kind of a circular argument? We can believe the word of God because the word of God says it is to believed?
Complete hijack.
replace {} with ok.
{url=http://www.xyz.com}Link name{/url} and that should work out nicely for you.
End of hijack.
That’s why, Zag, I said:
Also, I agree with your summation.
Nameless, I’m still researching this information (for myself). But from what I remember from church, the idea was that “we (the AG church) believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore, yes we believe what the Bible teaches because it comes from God”. (Is that still a circular argument, just re-worded. 
) Again - - I’m not trying to back up the link or debate it…I was just giving drg some info.
[resume highjack] Grey I’m more confused by your post - lol!! “replace {} with ok. {url=http://www.xyz.com}Link name{/url} and that should work out nicely for you.” But thanks. [end highjack]
Back to the OP.
It is like I said before, all I want is some physical proof. I know that evolution has tons of evidence to back it so I don’t need anymore proof or legitimacy from that end of the spectrum. Creationism on the other hand has NONE!!! Not one piece. Even when they try to tear apart evidence backing evolution they can’t do a good job of it. All I am saying is that if you want to make a credible argument to everyone you are going to have to give us more than because I said so… Please don’t think that I am trying to be a dickhead about this, but I would really like to see what physical/testable evidence creationists think gives their point of view any weight.
The smarter type of creationist doesn’t give evidence directly for creationism. Rather, s/he tears down evolution and, having “done” so, says, “Since we see that evolution is false, it must be the case that God created the world.”
Hence, we’re not going to get much evidence here.
With me the debate is that neither evolution nor biblical creation can be proved.
Scientists try to prove what happened x-number of years ago by comparing it with what is happening now, and that is not logical. The real truth is we don’t know how man began here on earth, neither do we know how this earth came about. That is the real truth. Science offers only the theory of evolution, and the theory of the Big Bang, but they teach it like it really happened. So they should receive challenges, the more the merrier. Although I am not a christian, I am a theist. I think it is very easy to see a higher intelligence at work in this world.
I don’t for a moment believe this world came about as an accident of nature, totally without any direction. There is a great deal of cooperation here between the elements that make up the universe. Your asking me to believe this all came about by accident, from out of chaos, no thank you.
Our children have a right to the truth, and the truth is, we don’t know. Teach several different versions or teach none.
The main thing about the teaching of evolution, it indicates to our children that being accidental, life has no purpose or meaning. That is a very sad thing to teach children. They will have to learn different when they grow older, just like they are learning the religions are also full of false statements.
Those who teach theory as truth should be challenged by the whole population to prove what they say, or tell the truth. Everyone knows in their heart this information remains unknown. No one from here was there, at the beginning, to measure it, weight it, photograph it, and report their findings.
Start telling the truth, now.
Love
Then there’s the type of creationist who believes that about 6000 years ago, the Creator made the world to look like it had been around for billions of years, had dinosaurs on it once, and filled it with evidence for evolution, etc etc. All for the Creator’s unknown and unknowable purpose.
If you’re gonna posit an omnipotent, omniscient creator, I really think the above-mentioned route is the way to go.
Personally I don’t find it to be good use of my time to debate with the creationist-types. But I do admire those who can debate with them calmly and rationally.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is no excuse to blab.
This is one of my pet peeves. If you don’t have a a clue about the subject at hand, why participate by stating ignorant statements as though they were “facts”.
Several of my friends love doing this, purely to antagonise me, I’m sure
What you just said is tantamount to me coming into a discussion about car racing and stating: I just got my first race car, it can go from 0 to 300 mph in 2 seconds, and can jump over obstacles as big as a house! Really!
What do you think the response of the people involved in the thread would be? Well, they may ignore you… something I refuse to do!
I too see purpose in the universe, and I’m a pantheist myself. I think it’s safe to say that the theory of evolution accurately describes how homo sapiens came to exist on this pretty little ball of rock and water.
For that reason, it’s also safe to say that the account of creation in the Bible is literally untrue. I do think it has mythological and spiritual significance, however.
It’s also true that scientists should not get arrogant and think that all has been figured out. It hasn’t.
My belief is that the universe came into being to support life, sentience, consciousness, and spiritual growth. However, I do not believe in a monotheistic creator.
Here are some claims supporting a young earth hypothesis or disputing commonly accepted geology that I have been too lazy to research for myself. Undoubtedly some of them are bunk, but there may be some that have not been adequately explained by the usual scientific hypotheses.
[ul]
[li]The scarcity of nickel-rich dust of cosmic origin on both the earth and the moon. This dust accumulates at either a constant or decreasing rate as we travel through the solar system. The argument is that there should be some 180 feet thickness of said dust on the moon if it has an age of 4.5billion years.[/li][li]The moon’s orbit orbit and proximity to earth. The moon is slowly receeding from the earth - energy is lost through the friction of tides among other things. Extrapolating back would place the moon at an infeasibly close radius in the not too recent past. Resulting in, among other things, very large tides. [/li][li]The strength of the earth’s magnetic field is apparently decreasing exponentially with a half life of some 1100 years. Again, extrapolating back would give infeasibly large values in the not too distant past.[/li][li]Reversals of the geologic column. Significantly a large mass of precambrian rock sitting atop cambrian rock with a coal seam between and no evidence of significant earth movement. IIRC this is claimed to exist somewhere in North America, perhaps Canada.[/li][li]The presence of micrometeoriods in the solar system. It is claimed that nearly all of these should have fallen into the sun by this stage if the solar system is as old as usually accepted.[/li][li]The existance of comets. These necessarily have a limited life since the some of the water they contain is boiled each time they pass the sun.[/li][li]Erosion rates. I have heard claims of a mismatch between between erosion processes, observed geographic forms and accepted (long period) geographic models. At current deposition rates the Mississippi Delta is projected to have an age of only 4000 years. Likewise the erosion of the Himalayas, which at present exceeds the rate at which they are being built up. The existance of the Himalayas therefore suggests a young age or a recent slowing of continental movement.[/li][/ul]
I am sure that you could find more such examples by looking at a site such as “Answers in Genesis”. Let me stress that I am simply answering the OP and am not prepared to defend any of these claims – I do not have access to the expertise and data. Although I myself am a creationist, I do not vouch for the credibility of those who purport to be creation scientists. I have seen too much dodgy pseudo-science that is righfully ridiculed by the scientific community. But I do find such quesions and claims interesting.
I simply can’t understand the need to postulate a creator. We can’t understand how life started, so let’s propose that something else, which we can’t understand, created life. All it does is add another layer of compelxity, without eliminating the root cause of the problem-- that there is something we don’t understand.
Thanks for the info. I will certainly look into these claims. It alarms me greatly that you found it on “Answers in Genesis” though. I took a look through that site today and it seemed like a pile of shit to me. Like I said though, I will look into all of these claims.
As both an intelligent (I hope) human being , and a person who follows the Christian faith, allow me to present my viewpoint.
As a rational person, I acept what science has to say about natural origins.
As a Christian, I believe that God was the motive force behind it.
Now I just wish I understood why that seems to offend both sides.
Not found in “Answers in Genesis.” I too have found that site frustrating and don’t go there. Mine is a variety of sources dredged up from ancient memory. Can’t give cites. Sorry. If I wasn’t so lazy I would have done some research myself, but, as I have said, the logical start point is a bit of a turn off.
It seems to me that one of the clearer of these arguments, that of the moon receding, might be easily verified or debunked by looking up NASA or some other atronomy sites and throwing the question via some of the more knowledgeable dopers who work in those fields. I am not up to speed on current theories on the origin of the earth moon system, but I do know that it has traditionally presented a few difficult questions.
Simple.
Foundational to the Christian faith is a set of beliefs on the authenticity and reliability of the Bible. A literal approach to the bible requires God to be more than just a motive force, which puts your looser interpretation at odds with some other Christians.
OTOH many proponents of evolution hold that evolution is a valid theory without the inclusion of a motive force, and get upset when you insist upon it.
Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism are both compromise hybrid positions. They necessarily involve rejection of some of the beliefs of both sides - sometimes for arbitrary or ill-defined reasons. As such, supporters of TE or PC come under attack from both parties. I personally don’t believe either are tenable positions. Usually a bit of digging or research will persuade people to join one of the two major camps.