[_ Old Earth _] Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’

[willow the wip]

hi some one made an interesting statement,

I thought it would be an interesting read.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

by Ken Ham

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidenceâ€â€the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same starsâ€â€the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present

We all exist in the presentâ€â€and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glassesâ€â€which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glassesâ€â€unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it isâ€â€a different interpretation based on differing presuppositionsâ€â€i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

1.

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions  see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word convicts

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

1.

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3.

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4.

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5.

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

 

[reznwerks]

hi some one made an interesting statement,

I thought it would be an interesting read.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
by Ken Ham

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.
Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidenceâ€â€the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same starsâ€â€the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
The key word here is facts. Facts are bits of information which are widely accepted because they hold consistantly to reliable known data.

We all exist in the presentâ€â€and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
Nice try but no cigar on that one. Non Christians argue from evidence as it is known and consistantly demonstrated to be reliable or at least possible based on information as it is known. Christians argue using a book written by man that is inconsistant with both fact and reliability by authors that are unknown and therefor the evidence is unreliable. Not only that the evidence for a creator or purposeful creation cannot be logically made based on the evidence we have at our disposal.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glassesâ€â€which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glassesâ€â€unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it isâ€â€a different interpretation based on differing presuppositionsâ€â€i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
No, science does not teach fact with presuppostions. You might but that is not science.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

1.

‘Facts’ are neutral. Really? However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. No they are not!Facts are just that, facts. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions  see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word convicts

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

Unfortunately for your students you are doing them a disservice. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
You can link sin with geology and fossil evidence? That must be some class. How old are your students and is this a public school?

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

1.

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3.

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4.

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5.

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

 

[ThinkerMan]

This sentence sums up the whole issue...

Because we start with different presuppositions.

That is exactly the problem. The scientific method is meant to be deductive.

That is, after you reach your results, you then deduce from the many facts an overriding prediction, a theory.

Definition of a theory :

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Now when one makes a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the earth is 6,000 years old), that should be the end of where the presuppositions end. After OBJECTIVELY viewing the evidence and results, you either disprove or prove your hypothesis.

What Creationism tends to do is introduce the hypothesis INTO the results and conclusion. It INDUCTIVELY views the evidence. That is, it views the evidence solely from the perspective of the hypothesis, and all contrary evidence is automatically discarded, leaving only ambigious or supporting evidence.

The scientific method demands that you forget your hypothesis after you write it. You simply must view the data objectively, THEN see if you were right.

It's no coincidence that Galileo and Newton were two of the first to utilize our modern objective scientific method. Once they removed inducive analysis, they were able to truly study the world unlike most that came before them.

 

[reznwerks]

science

This sentence sums up the whole issue...

Because we start with different presuppositions.

That is exactly the problem. The scientific method is meant to be deductive.

That is, after you reach your results, you then deduce from the many facts an overriding prediction, a theory.
No not quite. After you reach your results you have a conclusion. Either the theory was correct or it wasn't.

Definition of a theory :

[quote:cb982]A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Are you making your own definitions? The first half is correct in your statement but the part where you start with "especially" is not. Testing a theory or hypothesis may include new and never before tried tests.

Now when one makes a hypothesis (i.e. the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the earth is 6,000 years old), that should be the end of where the presuppositions end. After OBJECTIVELY viewing the evidence and results, you either disprove or prove your hypothesis.
The earth being 4.5 billion years old is no longer a hypothesis as there is ample data confirming the claim.

What Creationism tends to do is introduce the hypothesis INTO the results and conclusion. It INDUCTIVELY views the evidence. That is, it views the evidence solely from the perspective of the hypothesis, and all contrary evidence is automatically discarded, leaving only ambigious or supporting evidence.
When you introduce creationism as a hypothesis you should be able to test it and confirm its reliability. The problem creationists have is that they have yet to do so. For you to claim creationism is a valid hypothesis you should first be able to prove that a God exists. Then you would have to prove that this God wanted to do what is claimed in the bible. The only source for your claim is a book written by unknown authors with unknown credibility with first names only and the contents are confusing, error prone and contradictory. This is hardly something upon which science hangs its hat.

The scientific method demands that you forget your hypothesis after you write it. You simply must view the data objectively, THEN see if you were right.
No it doesn't especially if the hypothesis is incorrect. You see if the hypothesis is wrong maybe there needs to be a different hypothesis to explain the reality. It's called learning from ones mistakes or errors. You see as I said creationism has already started out with the answer but are desparately looking for the evidence to support it.

It's no coincidence that Galileo and Newton were two of the first to utilize our modern objective scientific method. Once they removed inducive analysis, they were able to truly study the world unlike most that came before them.[/quote:cb982]
Galileo was persecuted by the church for saying that the earth revolved around the sun which contradicted the theology of the day. Newton recieved his schooling in a church sponsered environment which was hardly conducive to freethinking.

 

[ThinkerMan]

rez...I'm an atheist who supports evolution... apologize if my post wasn't clear on that.

No not quite. After you reach your results you have a conclusion. Either the theory was correct or it wasn't

True...I apologize for leaving out the "conclusion" step.

Are you making your own definitions? The first half is correct in your statement but the part where you start with "especially" is not. Testing a theory or hypothesis may include new and never before tried tests.

From dictionary.com......I think it is a perfectly valid definition.

The earth being 4.5 billion years old is no longer a hypothesis as there is ample data confirming the claim.

I meant the hypothesis in the sense of the scientific method. For example, a scientist could state his hypothesis:

"Experiment X should yield Y results showing an age of 6,000 years for the earth". That is a valid hypothesis for a specific test.

Likely the hypothesis would be proven false, however you may state your hypothesis however you like, as long as your objectively draw your conclusion from the results....

When you introduce creationism as a hypothesis you should be able to test it and confirm its reliability. The problem creationists have is that they have yet to do so. For you to claim creationism is a valid hypothesis you should first be able to prove that a God exists. Then you would have to prove that this God wanted to do what is claimed in the bible. The only source for your claim is a book written by unknown authors with unknown credibility with first names only and the contents are confusing, error prone and contradictory. This is hardly something upon which science hangs its hat.

Thus, what I was trying to say (perhaps not doing a good job of it) is exactly what you say. That creationists do NOT objectively view the results to draw an objective conclusion.

They tend to bleed their religious views into the scientific results, and throw out anything contrary to their primary viewpoint (young-earth).

No it doesn't especially if the hypothesis is incorrect. You see if the hypothesis is wrong maybe there needs to be a different hypothesis to explain the reality. It's called learning from ones mistakes or errors. You see as I said creationism has already started out with the answer but are desparately looking for the evidence to support it.

I meant you forget it in the sense of when you analyze the results, and draw your conclusion. A scientists should be "agnostic" in his analysis in whether or not his hypothesis is proven or disproven. If it is objectively disproven, I agree, you start over.

I agree completely, that creationists aim to prove their theory in their results and conclusion, and do NOT view it objectively.

Galileo was persecuted by the church for saying that the earth revolved around the sun which contradicted the theology of the day. Newton recieved his schooling in a church sponsered environment which was hardly conducive to freethinking.

Did I write my post that badly? I obviously stated that because Galileo and Newton were able to remove any presuppositions (religous bias, etc) that they were able to OBJECTIVELY observe the world and hence, draw more proper conclusions.

I agree that religion was certainly an influence on their life, however they tended to not bleed into their objective analysis of their experiments, and were among the first to due so.

Sorry if my post was written so badly, I was simply trying to illustrate that Creationists used a biased kind of science, and do not properly utilize objective scientific method to arrive at their conclusions.

 

[Guest]

Evidence of creation is ovulation and conception of a new baby
in the Mother's body. Evidence of creation is all the animals and creatures
on earth and the unique and special design and features of each one.
Creation is evident in all the plants and trees,and every magnificent
flower and how they know when to start growing,and producing.
Evidence of creation is the stars and the planets and the sky.
Evidence of creation is you and me. We are living beings who have
been wonderfully and fearfully made.
DNA with it's great database full of information and perfect design.
A young woman keeping a BBT chart every month is evidence of
creation if she can have babies.
The rain is evidence of creation. Prophecy is evidence of a creator.