How can anyone really believe in creationism?

Question

I read that a "creation museum" just opened. Without being insulting, could someone please explain how you can just put aside all the scientific proof that the Earth is far older than the 6,000 years the creationists claim? I know there are large holes in the evolutionists story too, so I dont need to hear that. Dont tear the evolution side apart, just try to convince an admitted skeptic that there is any beliveable way that it could have happened the way creation claims.
I dont want to hear "its all about faith" because that means you dont have any proof, and Im not saying it *didnt* happen that way, I just want some reasonable person to tell me how they can believe it in 2007.

And no, im not an atheist, Im an agnostic, which means I dont know which side is right, they both have major problems being believeable.

And smiling4ever does exactly what I asked not to do; shredded evolution without offering a *speck* of proof for creationism. And yes, to answer another "answer", strict creationists claim that the moment of creation was just over 6000 years ago.

Answer 1

As a former athiest, turned agnostic, turned christian, I can say I've been on all sides of the coin (and studied all, as well) - So, no insults here! When I found out the flaws in macro-evolution, I felt lied to, became angry and started investigating creationism for myself (in conjunction with the reliability, historical and scientific relevance of the Bible - it's called "apologetics"). But, I'll leave that part out. :o)

As you mentioned, there are gaping holes in the MACRO-evolution theory, so I won't go there. Please know that both sides can agree on MICRO-evolution and its scientific verifiablity, but by no means describe micro-evolution as a definitive explanation for "the beginning". It more explains how a certain species made adaptive changes (i.e., birds' beaks changing over time, some off-shoot species evolving, etc.).

I can't really attempt to "convince" you of anything, though. Your best bet is read creationist materials from a trusted source (i.e., those who are generally respected by both their Christian peers and their atheist/agnostic counterparts). AnswersInGenesis.com is the best, in my opinion. Since I was in the legal field, knowing that an author/scientist is genuinely seeking truth is of utmost importance to me. I don't like someone who is SO clouded by agenda that the truth gets distorted (from either the christian or atheist). That's also why I would do the reading yourself.

Since it's WAY too broad a genre to talk about in one post, I'm posting a quote from AiG regarding the most compelling scientific arguments for a young-earth creationism (for more in-depth answers to these and other questions, I recommend going over to their website and clicking on the topical articles):

From AiG:
"1. The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations.

2. The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. You cannot expect this icon of evolution to be overthrown in a few short paragraphs.

3. John Morris’s book (The Young Earth) gives a good layman’s summary (with documentation and plenty of pictures to illustrate) of the some of the strongest evidences for a young-earth and global Flood. For more in-depth arguments see John Woodmorappe’s book (Studies in Flood Geology). Excellent DVDs illustrating some of these points are on Mt. St. Helens (Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe) and Grand Canyon (The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood). Creationist scientists (or any scientists, for that matter) don’t have answers to everything and so are continuing to do research (and the number of qualified creationist geologists is increasing), but following is some of the evidence brought out in these resources:

a. The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).

b. Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.

c. Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.

d. Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.

e. The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.

4. Creationists still have many challenges regarding the scientific evidence for a young universe, but distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents, as this DVD by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D. in astrophysics) shows: Distant Starlight."

Good luck, and happy reading, my friend!

Answer 2

These people are still in the Dark Ages. A few hundred years from now people will think of them the same way people today think of people who thought the world was flat. Our knowledge of the world around us and the universe in general is constantly changing.
Evolution is not a fact it is just a theory. There is just alot more physical evidence that the world and humanity are older than many of the world's religions claim. All evolution does is try to explain similarities in scientific discoveries. Who knows what science will be able to prove 500 years from now, but I truly doubt it will provide any supporting evidence for the bible, since all evidence thus far has been completely contradictory.

Answer 3

Creationist's do not hold that the earth is only 6000 years old.
Only dogmatic fundamentalists bind the scripture with literal interpretation.
The Bible is written is poetic and illustrative language which is not meant to be scientifically binding.
Example: In Genesis the creation is accomplished in 6 days.
In the book of 2 Peter, a day is "as a thousand years"
Notice, a day is not a thousand years it is as a thousand years.
The term day can be figuratively be used to describe an indeterminate amount of time.
Whilst, fundamentalists do the Bible message harm with their unbending rigidity, the Bible does allow for certain poetic liscense.
Thus those that read the Bible at face value understand that it is entirely withing Bible harmony to know that the universe and the earth can be as science says millions if not billions of years old.

Answer 4

You don't have to be right. So long as your audience only hears one side of the debate, evidence and logic are irrelevant. Some arguments are logical fallacies (Hitler believed in evolution). Others are irrelevant (A century ago some homid fossil turned out to be a hoax). Others are outright false (No transitional fossils exist). It's mostly a case of willful ignorance, there is no desire to find out the truth on the part of the audience of these claims. I have to wonder about something else you said though. You claim that in the UK creationism is unheard of. What about this survey that says in the UK half the people believe in creationism?

Answer 5

it is a matter of opinion
science says we came from nothing,
nothing can come from nothing
its scientificlly impossable
energy can neither be created nor destroyed

so we came from something ,the first human came from adam,
no worries science says it was lucy/ religion fl;oated the idea 6ooo years ago ,thus comes a scientist ,finds rafioactive decay is a con-stant determines the earth to be older than the words of the bible ,so what ,religion or more specificlly the bible doesnt say the world is 6000 years old some fool scientist did in rebuting his own mistaken claim to make his new discovery news worthy
then spread the word/media and debate
show me where in the bible it says we are nearly seven thousand years old
show me one fruitfly in the over one million generation of fruitfly mutation breeding that has yet produced any thing other than a fruitfly?
the claim for the theory of evolution is rebutted by the facts thats why its not a science but a theory of evolution
see darwin had finches ,they resembled other birds in structure but were proven to be all finches
this proved the vairiation within a given species has points of crossover ,looks like some other thing ,that the vairiation within a given species is more divergent than that BETWEEN the species
,what that boils down to is a sceliton that looks like some bred or tyype could /can /and is more likley to be NON related,
its like ordering the chips of one hundred green bottl;es and saying some were blue
ie its a fine theory but
its only a theory
the bible says an angel became a snake
written over 6ooo years ago religion said winged creatures are related to snakes ,birds have wings and scales ,its a debate able fact ,but one we can take on the faith in a theory of evolution
or a theory of a higher nothing i choose to call god.

Answer 6

There are many that believe in creation without the literal 6 days.

"The principle of [divine] purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks ... . The probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered ... ."Ernst Boris Chain - Nobel Prize in medicine

Even the old atheist Antony Flew said recently that the latest biological research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved."

Answer 7

Well, if you look all around you, how can you NOT believe in a God who created this earth? I mean He is just so mindful of us with such little things, I see more and more everyday! He created the earth to rotate and have seasons, and the sun is bright in the day when we need light, and dark at night when we need sleep. look how beautiful flowers are! and the mountains! and the oceans! And look at the universe, scientists just keep finding that it goes on and on and on... just take an hour and go out of the city into the country or the forest or something, and just sit there and look around. look at the little blades of grass, and the way trees grow, its awesome, because God created it.

Answer 8

Consider this. Evolution is a faith just as much as divine creation is. Any scientist worth his salt will agree that the theory of evolution is not a scientific fact, but a theory.

Answer 9

Well, people hear what they want to hear.

What this museum is saying to me is, 'Hi! We don't care about the scientific stuff, because we think it's bologna! Instead, we wish to show you are point of view, and maybe force it upon you a little. Hey, did you know that dinosaurs roamed the earth before Eve sinned?'

Uh, yeah. That's what it shouts towards me.

EDIT-
Did you notice that everyone who answered before me is atheist/agnostic?

Answer 10

back in Galileo's day, the whole scientific community ridiculed his findings that the earth revolves around the sun. Same applies today with the mass scientific community ridiculing creationists. the underdog (galileo) proved everyone wrong back then, maybe it will happen again,when creationists prove the evolutionists wrong.

Answer 11

I can't really help you since I am more of an atheist myself. The only thing I can guess is that they more or less have to believe in creationism or their whole belief in God falls apart.