Skip to comments.Presenting Proof of Creation is Possible
Posted on 07/24/2008 8:44:05 AM PDT by scottdeus12
A non religious or Biblical presentation that gives proof Creation is both logical and reliable. This proof however is right before our eyes ever day.
I recently wrote an article commenting on a group of aggressive atheists who I feel were making much ado about nothing. Although many readers misunderstood the point I was making it inspired me to write this article based on the responses of that article.
(Excerpt) Read more at scienceray.com ...
From the article:
“Let us begin than for example with those who accept the evolution theory. If you are convinced we evolved than you accept these unexplainable or beyond our comprehension facts. One being as the Einstein E=MC2 proves you must have energy to make matter. Or simply put life is derived from life. No one can dispute this and no one sane and/or intelligent ever has. So for evolution to be fact then you must accept as fact that all of the elements needed to merge together through pure chance had to already exist previous too the forced union of all those components colliding to start the universe.
You also have to accept or be asked to explain the mathematical impossibility of this happening. It would be more likely that all of the parts that make a Cadillac Escalade, a Rolex watch, and an Apple computer strewn over a large parking lot would somehow then suddenly come together in precise order and become the three objects mentioned. Consider also the overlying element of how things miraculously developed life and the ability to procreate.”
A complete waste of time. There was no ‘proof’ in the article at all.
On the other hand you have to be willing to believe that the earth is several thousand years old, and that most of what geology and geography and paleontology and astronomy and meteorology and many other sciences teaches is incorrect.
“On the other hand you have to be willing to believe that the earth is several thousand years old, and that most of what geology and geography and paleontology and astronomy and meteorology and many other sciences teaches is incorrect.”
Actually, that is not the case at all. Carefully reading the text, one can see that God created everything in a mature state, plants yielding seed, creation of man not boy, etc. Therefore, it is possible that the universe was created in a short amount of time and yet science be correct in its measurments. Personally, I prefer to think the Bible teaches what happened and science is attempting to explain how, but that is just me.
I’m not from the young Earth crowd.
I’m not sure about the 6000 year earth per se, but I think it is possible for it to be younger than evolutionists contend.
What creationists must understand though it that the biblical account was written to people with zero understanding of science, at least for most disciplines we have today, so clearly God is not going to lay out evolutionary theory or whatever, and the text must be read in that context. So creation in six days could have been or maybe not, but it is amazing to me that the general flow between the Bible and science as far as order of how things came to be seem to agree. Not bad for a 2000+ year old text. :)
oops, I meant 4000+ year old text. :)
The 'simply put' is an illogical leap that has no basis in the prior sentence.
You also have to accept or be asked to explain the mathematical impossibility of this happening. It would be more likely that all of the parts that make a Cadillac Escalade, a Rolex watch, and an Apple computer strewn over a large parking lot would somehow then suddenly come together in precise order and become the three objects mentioned.
Another bad argument. This is the putting the cart before the horse mistake. A mathematical improbability is not the same as a mathematical impossibility. One could argue that we are not 'designed' per say, but are the result of circumstances. Earth, for example, could be nothing more than the result of circumstances- matter combining, different elements, based on weight, collect in this gravitational range. Over billions of years, comets crash, bringing water, making a blue planet that looks unique, and is very different from every other planet, but is just the result of circumstances, not necessarily design.
Now, just for the record, I am not an atheist or agnostic, but I do believe in theistic evolution. What I don't like are all of these 'final proof' arguments that really just make the author look silly because the logic is so invalid.
You would also have to believe that God created a universe that was a lie, meant to trick us into not believing in Him by making it appear billions of years older than it was.
So, God created a universe in a way to deceive us into believing it was billions of years old and He didn't exist?
Interestingly, a Jewish theologian put this whole issue to rest under Judaism back in the middle ages. He concluded that if the physical evidence contradicted Judaism's understanding of the Bible, then the understanding of the Bible must be incorrect, not the evidence or the Bible itself.
Quite a logical conclusion, which I think other religions would be smart to adopt.
I think science has been way more deceptive, but that is the subject for another thread.
Whether God exists or not is in the end a matter of faith, not proof. If one has faith, then by faith one must not just believe in knowledge gleaned from nature, but also in that which has been revealed by God. We know creation happened in some fashion but quite frankly it’s anyone’s guess as to how from the natural evidence at hand, but the Bible reveals it happened relatively quickly, although there is much debate as to how long ago it did so.
Of this I know for sure. The universe in its created state has to comply with certain laws that God defined when creation was done. For example, we see light from neighboring stars. Science tells us what the speed of light is and how long it must have been traveling in order for us to see it. Those measurements cannot be refuted.
Now if I am proposing that the universe is relatively young, there has not been enough time for the light from stars and galaxies to reach us, at least not in the quantity that can be observed. Then the only explanation of what happened at creation is that everything was created in a mature state. Stars were created and photons put in place so we can observe them, oceans with fish bearing young, fowl bearing young, etc.
No, but it would have been very easy for God to simply state, or even imply, that we were related to other animals...and contrary to popular opinion, the Hebrews, likewise, would have very easily understood it, since the culture that they fled, and were exposed to for quite some time, incorporated human/animal hybrids. This notion that they wouldn't have understood such a concept is rubbish.
So creation in six days could have been or maybe not, but it is amazing to me that the general flow between the Bible and science as far as order of how things came to be seem to agree.
But you encounter a major problem with the creation of Eve, since she was created from the rib of Adam. I don't see how that can be a metaphor for anything even remotely resembling an evolutionary process.
You got this far then stumbled big-time.
See if you can figure out the error you made.