Affirmative evidence towards creationism

[Mathematician]

What evidence is there in support of creationism?

 

[Sunstone]

What evidence is there in support of creationism?

From what I understand, there is no indisputed evidence for creationism. Creationists tend to attack evolution and then falsely assume that if they can undermine evolution, they have proved creationism. But they have not developed a body of posititive evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Pah]

From what I understand, there is no indisputed evidence for creationism. Creationists tend to attack evolution and then falsely assume that if they can undermine evolution, they have proved creationism. But they have not developed a body of posititive evidence for their beliefs.

That's what I understand too. The only evidence for creationism is biblical. And that is a self-serving "truth".

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What evidence is there in support of creationism?

Well to use some of the logic I've heard in favor of evolution, then the fact the everyting exists proves it was created.

 

[Yerda]

Well to use some of the logic I've heard in favor of evolution, then the fact the everyting exists proves it was created.

As in all life has evolved to become what it is?

This seems circular, but crucially it is well evidenced.

 

[fantome profane]

Well to use some of the logic I've heard in favor of evolution, then the fact the everyting exists proves it was created.

You are just playing word games. For example we can say that the craters on the moon were created by meteor collisions. That is not evidence of “creation” in the sense of a willful act as implied in the concept of “creationism”.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

What evidence is there in support of creationism?

I don't know if you've been to this website before, but it offers a variety of scientific evidences for Biblical creationism: www.answersingenesis.com

Also, see this debate with Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong on Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design, along with the other papers in the "Science and Christianity" section of his site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040216002533/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ523.HTM#I.%20My%20Initial%20Analogy%20and%20the%20Ensuing%20Exchange

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't believe that ANY evidence exists about the initial creation of the universe. It was probably consumed during the action of creation.

But creationism is a rather large field, and you may be referring to that which denies evolution. Can we have a clarification here?

 

[painted wolf]

actually AiG only tries to 'disprove' science... it presents no evidence for creation.
you can't just say A is wrong so therefore B must be correct.
There could well be a C or D
without evidence in favor of Creation then it can't be valid scientifically.

also AiG is mostly based on misquotes and misinterpretations of valid science done by non ceationist scientists. AiG and the ID movement have yet to submit any work they have themselves done.

What evidence supports biblical (since to call ID anything but is silly) Creation....
not what evidence disproves evolution.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

AiG is pretty vapid in how it addresses science.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

actually AiG only tries to 'disprove' science... it presents no evidence for creation.

then you haven't read the site over all that well...

you can't just say A is wrong so therefore B must be correct.
There could well be a C or D
without evidence in favor of Creation then it can't be valid scientifically.

AiG offers a number of evidences for their view of creation specifically...again, it doesn't take that thorough of a perousal of the site to notice that, even if you don't agree with them.

also AiG is mostly based on misquotes and misinterpretations of valid science done by non ceationist scientists. AiG and the ID movement have yet to submit any work they have themselves done.

The creators and main contributors to AiG are PhDs...claming that they have yet to do ANY research on their own is stretching it a bit...they often reference the work of non-creationists whose research back up various points that they assert, in order to demonstrate the validity and objectivity of their scientific evidences.

 

[Pah]

...The creators and main contributors to AiG are PhDs...

...in sciences and professions unrelated to credentials for study of a biblical myth.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

...in sciences and professions unrelated to credentials for study of a biblical myth.

You tell me:

• Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
• Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
• Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
• Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
• Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
• Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
• Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
• Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
• Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
• Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
• Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
• Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
• Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
• Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

I could keep going, if you like....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You are just playing word games. For example we can say that the craters on the moon were created by meteor collisions. That is not evidence of “creation” in the sense of a willful act as implied in the concept of “creationism”.

Thank you you proved my point, now go back and read my post carefully.

 

[uumckk16]

Well to use some of the logic I've heard in favor of evolution, then the fact the everyting exists proves it was created.

How could that be used in favor of evolution? I've only ever heard that argument from proponents of intelligent design and creationism.

 

[rocketman]

You tell me:

Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

• Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist.......
• .....

I could keep going, if you like....

And while the numbers are small compared to mainstream scientists in favour of the standard model, I think it's nevertheless a good idea to point out that many of these creationists had to demonstate a thorough knowledge of standard evolutionary theory in order to get their degrees.

It really bothers me that so many on the mainstream side automatically dismiss the work being done by these scientists without checking into it first. The moment they draw a different conclusion (from the same evidence) they are shouted down and blocked from being published. It's not the evidence that is different, only the interpretation, much of which is supported by instances of existing evidences.

These days much of the work of the young-earth creationists is less about having a go at evolution and more and more about showing plausability for their own view. Gentry's work on polonium radiohalos springs to mind.

But let's not forget that not all creationists are of the young-earth type. The old-earth type don't seem to need much scientific evidence of creation at all, and they really are at odds with many of the young-earth views.

 

[Pah]

You tell me:

• Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
• Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
• Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
• Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
• Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
• Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
• Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
• Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
• Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
• Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
• Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
• Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
• Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
• Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

I could keep going, if you like....

No thanks. I belived you've cooked your own goose. But I'll go through the list to show you the ewrrors you've made.

 

[fantome profane]

The creators and main contributors to AiG are PhDs...claming that they have yet to do ANY research on their own is stretching it a bit

It is not stretching anything at all. It is a simple statement of fact. None of these so called “creation scientists” is engaged in doing any research anywhere. I realize that is rather an extreme statement, but it is nevertheless true. They are not interested in doing science, they are only interested in spreading propaganda.

If I am wrong it should be very simple for you to prove me wrong by simply giving me an example of actual scientific research being done by any of them.


I would like to remind people of the OP. GeneCosta asked “What evidence is there in support of creationism?”. A list of names is not evidence, nor are links to creationist propaganda. If you really believe those sites are so full of evidence in support of creationism, give us an example that we can examine.

p.s. even if you believe the nonsense that goes under the name “Irreducible Complexity” it should be considered evidence against evolution. It is still not evidence of I.D. nor creationism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It is not stretching anything at all. It is a simple statement of fact. None of these so called “creation scientists” is engaged in doing any research anywhere. I realize that is rather an extreme statement, but it is nevertheless true.

Can we polarize this any more? There is no way for you to support this contention...

The science from that site is vapid in it's own right. Their qualifications are a red herring used by both sides of the debate. Let's get back to the original topic.

Again, I asked for a clarification. Are we discussing the creation of the universe or is this just another lame discussion about evolution?

 

[rocketman]

If I am wrong it should be very simple for you to prove me wrong by simply giving me an example of actual scientific research being done by any of them.

What is your opinion on this research? (Just a friendly question to a bright person whose thoughts I respect).

p.s. even if you believe the nonsense that goes under the name “Irreducible Complexity” it should be considered evidence against evolution. It is still not evidence of I.D. nor creationism.

If you could show that there had been unnatural interference you might then speculate that a non-human mind was involved. Some IDers look at IC that way.