Creationism vs. Evolution

[Dr Dre]

I'm an atheist in a family of die hard christians who insist that creationism is right and evolution is completely wrong. Which lead me to ask is there any evidence for creationism. Any thoughts.

[John Cuthber]

I'm an atheist in a family of die hard christians who insist that creationism is right and evolution is completely wrong. Which lead me to ask is there any evidence for creationism. Any thoughts.

It's a matter of definition.The universe had a beginning.

But there is no valid evidence for a "Creator".

People cite a number of things as evidence, probably the commonest is one of a number of old books.

 

However the actual physical evidence contradicts essentially all the scriptures.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3339982/Worlds-oldest-tree-discovered-in-Sweden.html

[ydoaPs]

The universe had a beginning.

Sort of, but not really.

[Endercreeper01]

There is no scientific evidence for creationism, but there is scientific evidence for evolution.

[Phi for All]

There's no evidence for creationism. There's a thread where a creationist asked for everyone to present evidence and no one could. I'll look for it..

 

I think the best, quickest presentations you can give to creationists is to tell them about one of the first vertebrate animals, like Haikuichthys. Most creationists are hung up on the "monkey descendant" bit of evolution, so it kind of blows them away when you go all the way back to the common ancestor for everything with a backbone and it's a fish..

 

Then show them this video:

 

Dawkins showing how vertebrate design, far from "perfect", is nevertheless a product of millions of years of awesome evolution.

[BusaDave9]

I believe there is a scientific explanation for everything. Mankind may not have all the answers now but I do believe there is a scientific answer for everything.

It used to be that God was the answer for everything: why does the sun come up every day; why does a flower bloom; why is the sky blue and the sunset red. "Because god made it so" was always the answer. Now science can explain these things.

 

All the sciences fit together. To talk about evolution scientifically you can see how carbon dating can explain recent species. Fossels, geology, rock dating and several other sciences fit together to explain the species. To deny evolution is to deny many branches of science. Just the rock layers over the earth can't be explained by religion. Some religious people say the rock layers with fossles were caused by Noah's Flood. But that can't explain how rock layers cover almost the whole earth. Where did the mud and sediments come from? The only explanation is the Earth must be much older than the bible says. In the 4.5 billion years of Earths history every spot was, at one time a low area and received sediment.

Religion can't explain much at all. And when religion tries to explain anything the explanation is always the same: "Because God said so!"

[Dr Dre]

I see a lot of your points, however what do you say to websites like the ICR and AiG

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

[Ringer]

I see a lot of your points, however what do you say to websites like the ICR and AiG

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

 

It doesn't matter what you say to them, they will ignore it and repeat whatever claim you just falsified. But if you feel you will be involved in debates with them, familiarize yourself with common claims they make and why they are wrong. talkorigins.org is a good place to start your research.

[Phi for All]

I see a lot of your points, however what do you say to websites like the ICR and AiG

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

 

Every single point both those sites make is refuted cleanly, thoroughly and honestly over at http://www.talkorigins.org.

 

Edit to add: Sorry, didn't see Ringer's mention of the same site. That's OK, it's worth mentioning twice.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Phi for All

[BusaDave9]

I see a lot of your points, however what do you say to websites like the ICR and AiG

http://www.answersingenesis.org

http://www.icr.org

AnswersInGenesis.org says this:

 

We should take Genesis 1–11 as straightforward, accurate, literal history

 

Here's where I got the above http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/literal-genesis

 

They are saying to take the Bibil and Genisis literally when they say the Universe was created in 7 days. This defies so many branches of science that it's hard to find a place to start. The rock layers were one example I stated earlier. There is no way reconcile this. ...well, there is one way. The whole world and everything in the universe is an illusion. God made the rock layers, fossils, radioactive decay all to make it appear that the universe is billions of years old instead of a few thousand.

God did this as a test for us. He wants to see if we believe the Bible with out doing any thinking at all. He wants to see if we can live by faith without any reasoning at all. Anyone doing any thinking and believes the illusions God has put forth will go strait to hell for thier gullibility.

[tomgwyther]

In my experince, creationists tend also to be racists. Not all but some.

Evolution via natural selection proves that all human beings are the same species, irrespective of skin colour. For some, the idea that black people are equal with white people is unpallettable.

Just as racists are unwilling to change their mind about why they hate other racists, creationists are - via ignorance or pride - unwilling to change their mind.

I'm not saying that creationist = racist, but they are certainly close in their liniage and both employ a close-minded and, to be frank, stupid way of thinking.

[moth]

Is the creationist view that complexity only arises by deliberate action? How can they account for the complexity of a creator.
I find it hard to understand why a complex universe needs a creator but a creator which must have equal or greater complexity than the universe can pop into existance from nothing.

[Moontanman]

Is the creationist view that complexity only arises by deliberate action? How can they account for the complexity of a creator.

I find it hard to understand why a complex universe needs a creator but a creator which must have equal or greater complexity than the universe can pop into existance from nothing.

 

 

Special pleading is their only answer...

[pears]

You might find it helpful to point them at http://www.biologos.org/. It's a christian site that supports mainstream science including mainstream evolution theory.

[John Cuthber]

Come to think of it, this thread is upside down.

"I'm an atheist in a family of die hard christians who insist that creationism is right and evolution is completely wrong. Which lead me to ask is there any evidence for creationism. "

They are the ones making the strange claim about the sky fairy.

They should be the ones providing the evidence.

If they can't then they should stop going on about it.

And I'm willing to be that the website that Pears just cited provides no actual evidence to support the existence of a God.

[pears]

I wasn't billing it as such. The thread isn't about that. It's about christians believing in creationism and rejecting evolution.

 

I hope the site may be of some help in resolving some conflict within the OPs family.

[John Cuthber]

In any event, " die hard christians who insist that creationism is right" should be able to provide evidence to support their assertion.

[Villain]

In any event, " die hard christians who insist that creationism is right" should be able to provide evidence to support their assertion.

 

Unless they don't want to, in which case they'll just carry on with their lives. This assertion only makes sense if both sides buy into it.

[swansont]

In my experince, creationists tend also to be racists. Not all but some.

Evolution via natural selection proves that all human beings are the same species, irrespective of skin colour. For some, the idea that black people are equal with white people is unpallettable.

Just as racists are unwilling to change their mind about why they hate other racists, creationists are - via ignorance or pride - unwilling to change their mind.

I'm not saying that creationist = racist, but they are certainly close in their liniage and both employ a close-minded and, to be frank, stupid way of thinking.

 

!

Moderator Note

Regardless of the vast shortcomings of any science one might be able to associate with creationism, this is not an excuse to poison the well with regard to the people that hold those beliefs. Please stick to the considerable effort of thinking of any science that might support creationism, which is the topic of the thread.

[John Cuthber]

 

Unless they don't want to, in which case they'll just carry on with their lives. This assertion only makes sense if both sides buy into it.

I see you quoted the cut down version in the repeat, rather than the original whole thing.

 

Here it is in is full glory

"They should be the ones providing the evidence.

If they can't then they should stop going on about it."

Now, if they believed whatever they wanted, but never mentioned it, there wouldn't be an issue.

Meanwhile, back at the evidence...

Do you know of any?

[Dr Dre]

When it comes to comes to evidence I have heard that soft tissue was recovered from a T. Rex. The creationists claim that there is no way that the tissue could have survived for millions of years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.UqnoIWQ-vmk

[Endy0816]

Only thing I can think of would revolve around some of the unknowns of abiogenesis. Even then it is more a question of how, than evidence that a creator was involved.

[Moontanman]

When it comes to comes to evidence I have heard that soft tissue was recovered from a T. Rex. The creationists claim that there is no way that the tissue could have survived for millions of years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/#.UqnoIWQ-vmk

 

This article seems to give a reasonable explanation...

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/t-rex-soft-tissue-controversy-explained-how-iron-preserved-68-million-year-old-dinosaur-tissue

[John Cuthber]

That's an interesting view on evidence.

If I had asked the creationists about 70 million year old dinosaur tissue a year ago they would have told that it couldn't exist because the earth isn't old enough.

Now we have found it and they say it's still not evidence because "it's impossible".

 

It's clear from things like this that the evidence wouldn't matter because they will pretend it doesn't exist, until it becomes overwhelming, then they will pretend that it never mattered. They did it with the heliocentric universe, and they did it with evolution. And they will doubtless do it again..

[Ophiolite]

Most hard line creationists I have encountered (in person, online and in the literature) argue that if the 'facts' are in conflict with the Biblical truth, then the facts are wrong. That does not, in my view, leave any manouvering room for such an individual to be an honest scientist.