Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

BurntDaisy, you are correct in that our current state of knowledge does not allow us to say how life arose on earth. Therefore you are certainly entitled to hold whatever belief you wish about that.However, isn't this yet another case of God of the gaps? This is when there is some gap in our knowledge of the natural world. A believer then suggests the answer "God did it". The theological danger to this is that gaps close. If you observe what has happened historically you find the "God did it" explanation going away as we learn more. This is theologically dangerous ground.The more theologically sophisticated accept that God is responsible for our natural world but that his involvment doesn't stoop to tingering with it here and there. In this view God was able to create a universe that allowed for life to arise when the conditions were right. His structuring of the laws of that universe were such that not only could living things arise but also self-aware (God like?) living things could arise.The topic of this thread is "evolution" not the origin of life. That we know a lot about. There is no gap there to squeeze a god into.You say you are a "creationist". However you should be careful of that term. When it is not qualified it tends to mean someone who is a biblical literalists. A "fundie" for short. These folk claim a 6,000 year old earth, a global flood and that everything is wrong with most of modern science. These "gaps" have already been closed.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-09-2004]

Not to be nitpicky, but "Case for Christ" was written by Strobel, not McDowel. Strobel wasn't a scientist, but a journalist. His book shows how NOT to be a good reporter.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

burntdaisy622, Can you prove fairies never did it? No? It's a totally meaningless proposition sans evidence, then. Can you PROVE I didn't fart the earth out after a curry? No? What value do you think we should place on such explanations, then?The point is that "creation" makes direct predictions, especially when accompanied by a flood. Evolution does too, but its predictions are borne out, creations aren't.Please explain why the correlation of ordering of potentially multiple lineages in a cladogram matches evolutionary predictions to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1......568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 ....chance of 300 cladograms only enjoying a 60% (as opposed to a 75% corroboration with stratigraphy).
of it occurring by chance.So, you see your problem, no one has to falsify your claim, you have to support it.Look at your little finger, imagine an atom in it, imagine an electron in that atom. The odds of the evolutionary expectation being what they are, are all of the electrons in the known universe : 1 of that happening.Evolution happened, mate.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-09-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

And neither C. S. Lewis nor Josh McDowell were scientists. And indeed Lewis never even claimed to be trying to disprove the Bible - his conversion back to Christianity was for other reasons entirely (as "Burntdaisy" would know if he or she had actually read _Mere Christianity_).

Been trying to take in all this. Read over a good bit. Not sure though if this has been mentioned.
I don't know a lot about science, gnomes, DNA and all the stuff ya'll have been talking about.
So, whether it makes sense or not, I'll throw this out and see how bad it gets ripped up. Long story short--- God created life and it was perfect. After the 'fall' in Eden, things became imperfect and went the way of nature instead of the supernatural perfection it started out with.
Then, in this natural state, evolution, mutation, adaptation, whatever, became possible.
I can't prove it no more than anyone can absolutely without a doubt prove creation and/or evolution. At least from what I can figure. It's just an idea that helps me make some sense of living things. Being able to prove or disprove either or a degree in genetics, astronomy, etc isn't a prerequisite to believing in God and his handywork.
But, He did give us a mind to use and free will. We have the right and obligation to question things and not fall for the latest fad that comes along.Oh, ya'll lost me on a lot of stuff waaaaaaaay back, but it was very interesting trying to make sense of it. I need to go back over this stuff later when I have more time.Rc

Then you have no right what so ever on the validity of the statments science makes. You actually have to know what you are talking about before you can start to critize. This depends on what you mean by all of "prove", "without a doubt" and both "creation" and "evolution".It is entirly possible to demonstrate that a YEC creation scenario is false (or you have to believe in a God as prankster). That is easier than proving something 'absolutely true'. That, by itself, doesn't prove any alternative true, of course.See the "evolution as fact and theory" thread to understand that evolution as "fact" is provable beyond any reasonable doubt. The "how" part is less "provable" but is clearly correct beyond any reasonable doubt also. Believing in God (of some types) is not an issue of science. So you are right it isn't something that genetics or astronomy disproves or proves.He did give us a mind and a lot of evidence for us to figure out how he did things. The current scientific consensus in biology, geology and physics is in no way a "fad". Only a deep ignorance could possible lead someone to think that for a minute.

Then you have no right what so ever on the validity of the statments science makes. You actually have to know what you are talking about before you can start to critize. This depends on what you mean by all of "prove", "without a doubt" and both "creation" and "evolution".It is entirly possible to demonstrate that a YEC creation scenario is false (or you have to believe in a God as prankster). That is easier than proving something 'absolutely true'. That, by itself, doesn't prove any alternative true, of course.See the "evolution as fact and theory" thread to understand that evolution as "fact" is provable beyond any reasonable doubt. The "how" part is less "provable" but is clearly correct beyond any reasonable doubt also. Believing in God (of some types) is not an issue of science. So you are right it isn't something that genetics or astronomy disproves or proves.He did give us a mind and a lot of evidence for us to figure out how he did things. The current scientific consensus in biology, geology and physics is in no way a "fad". Only a deep ignorance could possible lead someone to think that for a minute.

Thread copied to the Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened? thread in the Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Thread copied to the Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened? thread in the Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.