Ok, creationists and biblical literalists, here's your chance...?

Question

...to show how creation meets scientific criteria.

What scientific evidence exists to show that all life on earth was created as is, and without any ancestral species that was a predecessor within 6 literal earth days (as we know them) approximately 6 to 10 thousand years ago?

Be advised, that criticism against the evidence for evolution and an ancient earth is NOT evidence for literal creation and a young earth, even if that criticism is valid.

Just give me one argument that isn't a fallacy, illogical, or psuedoscience.

I will respond to each argument, disclosing which fallacy is being commited, if any, or how it is psuedoscience.

Please, read through the other answers before responding to avoid repetitive arguments, because I won't address the same issue twice.

More than a Hat Rack, there are many who call themselves "Creation Scientists." They have many convinced that science supports literal creation. Believing in literal creation by faith alone is fine with me. But this question is directed to those who believe that science supports their theory.

For the rest of you who have answered so far, be advised that I am a christian. I believe in theistic evolution. And the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. That is a different question and a different field.

Search4Truth, your entire answer covers several different points, and all are fallacious or just plain wrong. No time to cover them all here, but if you wish, send me a message and I'll spell them out to you. For now, I'll mention the most galring fallacies you committed...Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Fairness, and last, many criticisms of the evidence for evolution. I could come up with more. I'll be more specific if you send a message.

Aj Steele, and others, evolution only deals with how life diversified once it started. How life started is a seperate, unrelated issue.

To all others, this is MY question. If you have a question of your own, post it as your own, and if I see it, I'll answer it.

You know who you are...
God did it, I have faith, the bible says so, etc
Fallacy-Appeal to the Supernatural.

PracticalWizard, you noticed that too?

Bachlor of the Arts, so scientists revises their theories when new, conflicting evidence arises. So what? It simply shows that they are processing new information and adapting theories to reflect new knowledge. That is what science does. To NOT do so is dogma. That's what creationists do. Ever know anybody who used to be unsaved, and now is a christian? Are they wrong simply to have changed their mind due to having heard God's voice?
Your fallacies are Slothful Induction and Attacking the Strawman. http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Scientific_findings_are_always_changing

You know who you are...
Fallacy-Circular Argument;
Guy 1-The bible says so!
Guy 2-Well, how do you know that the bible is correct?
1-Because the bible is the infallible Word of God.
2-And how, pray tell, do you know that?
1-Becuase the bible says it is the infallible Word of God.

Search4truth-"Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be." This isn't a fallcy. It's just plain wrong. Evolution is a theory. It is only supposed to explain the evidence. It isn't supposed to BE anything. When conflicting evidence comes up, the theory is scrapped or edited. Most times, a theory in its early stages isn't right on the mark, but darn close. All evolution says is that all life has a common ancestor through which it evolved through gradual hereditary changes over time. Of all of the theories which have been revisited and revised, evolution theory has gone through the LEAST change of all of them. You also failed to back up this statement with anything.

"However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature."

Again, not a fallcy, just blatantly wrong. Neither have you backed up this ascertion with anything. Macroevolution is also speciation, which is when an isolated group of a species changes so much that it can no longer produce viable offspring with the group that was its predecessor. To say this has never happened is false (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5). If this can happen in a matter of observable generations, then it is not unreasonable to believe that it could happen within millions or billions of years. Your fallacy here is False Dilemma, because even if macroevolution hasn't been observed, this criticism does not prove literal creationism.

"Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on." Appeal to Authority. Yes, they were great scientists, but they weren't infallible. Theories are accepted or not based on the evidence, not based on who says. Not to mention that it can be argued that each of these scientists you mention may or may not have been creationists. Even if they were, you have failed here to provide an appropriate answer to my question.

"Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways." Fallacies-Slothful Induction. The homologies of varies similar species is only one small part of the evidence for evolution. Homologous structures alone may not be convincing, but add to this the gradual changes of these homologous structures of animals in the fossil record, and other evidences for evolution, and you have more reason to believe in common descent than that God used a template, and the vast time frames involved, as well as several extinction events, would require that God "created" many more times than just the six mentioned in Genesis, and over much more time than six days. There is no reason, empirically or scripturally, to believe that God used more than six creation events, nor that He used a template.

"Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures." Fallacy-Attacking the Strawman. Here, the source that you coppied and pasted from is referring to vestigial limbs. Yes, human tailbones, the vestigial limbs on boas and pythons, and other examples do have a function. However, evolution scientists have never said that they didn't or shouldn't, which is why you have created a Strawan. Next, you fail to take notice of the fact that all of these appendages can be surgically removed with no ill effects to the organism or its ability to procreate. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html. I had a really good link that listed vestigial limbs, organs, and behaviors. I'll try to find it.

Found that link...http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges

"It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism." Another false statement. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html. Your source is batting zero. Shall I continue?

"The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." Again, the Slothful Induction fallacy. Asking for direct demonstration that one species evolved from another is a bit of an excessive demand for proof when the process takes millions of years; hundreds of thousands at a minimum. And it belies that fact that there has never been an observed demonstration of anything being created in an instant from nothing. It also belies the fact that these extinct species have left behind fossils which have been studied and compared to other fossils as well as living animals, and the progressive similarities and homologies charted, dated, and otherwise analysed. It all points to common ancestry.

Answer 1

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.
Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.
There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.
While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.
Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?
Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."
A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).
A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.
A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:
Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.
...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!
The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

Answer 2

God told me He did it... He did not say how He did it, or how long it took him. He did not provide any "scientific" evidence...He just told me... you may think I am joking, but I am not. When God tells you something...and you will know it is God... you had better believe it is The Truth... But God dose not compel belief... So you are free to persue what ever "scientific" "theory" you choose to make up...

I am not anti-evolution by-the-way...I just do not apply it to mankind.


All science comes from God... Thus all science is good. Man has almost no understanding of all of the science God has put in place to maintain the functions of this universe. If man had not mucked it up so bad, by mis use of God's science, all of mankind would be living in peace and plenty. Instead of living in the poluted messs we have made.

Answer 3

Matter of Faith.
Do we really know everything about the world. Facts change all the time. For example the last est adjusted fact about Pluto's status. It was considered a planet until a few days ago. Now we have one fewer planet than we had.

Science without religion is lame. (some body said this in some book I read somewhere- acknowledgment to who ever that was)

Answer 4

well, i'm reading the other answers and giggling because everyone seems to have completely ignored what you said.

i'm just going to offer a quote from a position paper on the teaching of "scientific creationism" in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. i'm not going to explain, i'm not going to comment on what it says, you can just read the quote and consider it yourself and apply it necessarily. i think it speaks volumes...about both sides.

"Science, which does not deal with beliefs based on faith and does not claim absolute truth for its findings, utilizes an organized method of problem solving in an attempt to explain phenomena of our universe."

Answer 5

Not sure how anyone will be able to answer this one...there isn't any biblical evidence of a creation meeting the criteria you listed either.

Answer 6

I happen to be a Christian, my question is if we were
to come from beings such as apes, fish whatever.....
& from a big bang then how did all that come to be,
who created that ? !
I believe in the words of the Bible & that's what I choose to believe, it makes sense to me

TO EACH THEIR OWN , that's the freedom God gives us

check out more on : www.wayofthemaster.com

Answer 7

How does "something" coming from nothing meet the scientific criteria?

Answer 8

i think you've missed the point. you probably don't want to hear this, but "the bible says" we understand creation by faith, not by science.

my question, is where did science get the authority to rule over religion?

please answer that question using science.

Answer 9

Does not even nature in itself teach us there is a God?

Answer 10

Wow! Why don't you just tell us the truth! I want to hear the details from you.