ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

noguru

noguru

Well-known member
In the interest of intellectual integrity I would like to ask others "What they believe to be the best evidence for young earth supernatural creation?" Since Bob B has started another thread asking for the best evidence for evolution, I thought we should also consider the other alternatve.
 
chatmaggot

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
In the interest of intellectual integrity I would like to ask others "What they believe to be the best evidence for young earth supernatural creation?"
Click to expand...

a) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." Exodus 20:11

b) "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female..." Mark 10:6

c) "23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God." Luke 3

In part (a) above we have Exodus stating that everything was created in six days. In part (b) above we have Mark stating that humans were created in the beginning. And then in part (c) above you have a geneology of Jesus going all the way back to Adam (the first human).

Hope this helps.
 
macguy

macguy

New member
Are you asking for evidence of a young earth, evidence for creation in biology or both? There are two creation models, one believing that the earth is old.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
chatmaggot said:
a) "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." Exodus 20:11

b) "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female..." Mark 10:6

c) "23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God." Luke 3

In part (a) above we have Exodus stating that everything was created in six days. In part (b) above we have Mark stating that humans were created in the beginning. And then in part (c) above you have a geneology of Jesus going all the way back to Adam (the first human).

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


Are you going to use this in science class?
 
Damian

Damian

New member
noguru said:
In the interest of intellectual integrity I would like to ask others "What they believe to be the best evidence for young earth supernatural creation?" Since Bob B has started another thread asking for the best evidence for evolution, I thought we should also consider the other alternatve.
Click to expand...

There is none except in the imagination of those who maintain the ridiculous belief that Genesis accurately describes the creation of the world.
 
chatmaggot

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Are you going to use this in science class?
Click to expand...

Are you stating that the Bible is not scientific?

Can something be true that isn't "used" in science class?

Why exclude those things that can't be "used" in a science class?

What is your basis for determining what is or is not true?
 
Real Sorceror

Real Sorceror

New member
chatmaggot said:
Are you stating that the Bible is not scientific?
Click to expand...
Ya... ya thats basically what we're saying. Unless it can be proven or supported by scientific means then its not science.
Can something be true that isn't "used" in science class?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only if it is fictional.
Why exclude those things that can't be "used" in a science class?
Click to expand...
Because we are talking about where the Earth and life came from, which is kinda sciencey.
What is your basis for determining what is or is not true?
Click to expand...
Reality. What can be proven with real world evidence. The Bible is just a story unless the real world reflects what is found therein.
 
noguru

noguru

Well-known member
chatmaggot said:
Are you stating that the Bible is not scientific?
Click to expand...

I do not see evidence that the Bible was meant to be a scientific text book.

chatmaggot said:
Can something be true that isn't "used" in science class?
Click to expand...

Of course.

chatmaggot said:
Why exclude those things that can't be "used" in a science class?
Click to expand...

I don't exclude anything. I just think some things are appropriate for science and others are not. A book on ethics, the history art, or theology is not good text on which to base a review of the relevant issues in the material sciences.

chatmaggot said:
What is your basis for determining what is or is not true?
Click to expand...

In the material sciences I don't view theories as having absolute certainty. I think we can sometimes be confident in the likelihood of something being true given the evidence. This is why I am asking for the empirical evidence that supports a young earth creationist model of natural history.
 
chatmaggot

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
I do not see evidence that the Bible was meant to be a scientific text book.



Of course.



I don't exclude anything. I just think some things are appropriate for science and others are not. A book on ethics, the history art, or theology is not good text on which to base a review of the relevant issues in the material sciences.



In the material sciences I don't view theories as having absolute certainty. I think we can sometimes be confident in the likelihood of something being true given the evidence. This is why I am asking for the empirical evidence that supports a young earth creationist model of natural history.
Click to expand...

(1) Just because you don't see evidence doesn't mean that it is not.

(2) If you are looking for evidence for "natural history" would a history text suffice as proof or does the evidence you require have to be from a science book?

I am just trying to determine what evidence you are willing to except and which you are going to exclude. I am then trying to determine on what basis you exclude evidence.

If you are only willing to accept evidence that is narrowed for some specific reason, I am looking for that reason your evidence has to be so narrow (i.e. a science book and not a history book)

If a history book says that George Washington was the first president of the United States are you willing to accept that or must it be stated in a biology or chemistry book before you are willing to accept it as being true?
 
PlastikBuddha

PlastikBuddha

New member
chatmaggot said:
(1) Just because you don't see evidence doesn't mean that it is not.

(2) If you are looking for evidence for "natural history" would a history text suffice as proof or does the evidence you require have to be from a science book?

I am just trying to determine what evidence you are willing to except and which you are going to exclude. I am then trying to determine on what basis you exclude evidence.

If you are only willing to accept evidence that is narrowed for some specific reason, I am looking for that reason your evidence has to be so narrow (i.e. a science book and not a history book)

If a history book says that George Washington was the first president of the United States are you willing to accept that or must it be stated in a biology or chemistry book before you are willing to accept it as being true?
Click to expand...

Why would we be discussing George Washington's presidency in a SCIENCE class?
 
chatmaggot

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
PlastikBuddha said:
Why would we be discussing George Washington's presidency in a SCIENCE class?
Click to expand...

noguru seemed to indicate earlier by the following quote "Are you going to use this in science class?" that only that which can be discussed in a science class can be considered true.

I quoted a history text (the Bible) and it was excluded as evidence. I wanted to know why? Just because the Bible isn't a science textbook DOESN'T mean that when it talks about scientific matters it isn't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top