This is not meant to be about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, or the religious belief that God created everything and macro-evolution isn't possible. It is about the method by which creationists attempt to bolster their argument that 1) the theory of evolution is wrong, and 2) God created everything.
1. Even if you were to be able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution, it would in no way magically create support for creationism.
2. The Bible does not provide any verifiable evidence for anything. It is merely a book of claims. So, assuming that a claim in the bible is true without providing evidence to support it as being true is fraudulent reasoning (unless, of course, you start the debate with the understanding that the Bible is to be considered true).
3. Unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe that scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility. I agree, anything is possible, but in a debate over a scientific theory, it is your responsibility to back up your claims with evidence. If you claim that the laws of nature might have been different, then back that up with supporting, verifiable evidence.
Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe. Certainly, God could have used evolution as a tool to get life on earth to where it is today via genetic mutations and natural selection. In that case, God would have started the process and possibly would have created the first form of life on earth (bacteria). Because evolution does not even speak to the origin of life on earth, there really is no contradiction. But, that is also not what this thread is about.
Scientists have gotten to the current theory of evolution by utilizing the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation and observation, it becomes a "scientific theory", like the theory of evolution. In short, they see a phenomenon, create a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon, and test that hypothesis with experimentation and observation. Other scientists will continually try to disprove the hypothesis, and after this has all been done "to death", the hypothesis graduates to become a scientific theory.
When discussing creationism with RF members, I came to the conclusion that they are using a fraudulent method (I call the "creationistic method") to support their hypothesis about the creation of the universe.
First, they start with the belief that the Bible is accurate. This is troubling by itself, as there is no verifiable evidence that the Bible is 100% correct, divinely inspired, or that certain stories aren't fictional (like the creation account in Genesis).
Next, they make assumptions about certain biblical events, like the flood, and characters, like Moses or Noah. We have no verifiable evidence that proves Moses or Noah existed. But, instead of looking for said evidence, creationists tend to believe whatever is stated in the Bible is true unless it can be proven false. Now, anyone with a basic understanding of logic can plainly see this is absolutely unreasonable and logically fallacious. Believing something is true without verifiable evidence, based on nothing more than claims from an ancient text written by mostly unknown authors, until someone can prove it incorrect (prove a negative) is fraudulent. It is illogical, unreasonable, and spits in the face of actual knowledge and understanding.
Next, they incorrectly assume that poking holes in the theory of evolution somehow magically creates evidence for creationism. This is, again, obviously fraudulent. Even if evolution is proven false, it being incorrect in no way provides any evidence whatsoever for creationism. They aren't the only two options ... they are merely the only two plausible options currently on the table. But, our scientific understanding of the universe is still vastly incomplete. So, it is dishonest to claim that if evolution is false, creationism must be true.
Finally, they assume seemingly ludicrous things without any evidence and ask "evolutionists" to prove them wrong. Again, this is logically incoherent, as nothing should be assumed true until proven false. For example, recently I heard the argument that the scientific laws of nature did not apply before 6,000 years ago. So, the decay rate of radioactive carbon isotopes was not only not the same as it has been since it has been measured. Radioactive isotopes might not have decayed at all before that time. Obviously, this is a supernatural claim ... an extraordinary one too. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. We CANNOT believe something like this without verifiable evidence to confirm it. If there is no plausible reason to assume that scientific laws were different at any time throughout cosmic history, or even a crumb of evidence that even points to that conclusion, it should not be considered.
The main point I'm trying to make is this: We CANNOT fall into the trap of making assumptions simply because they help to align reality with our world view. Assumptions are fine, and necessary. But, they must be based on evidence of some kind. Claims in the Bible aren't evidence of anything ... they are merely claims.
So, if you think that scientific laws that govern the universe magically didn't rule 6,000 years ago, make your case. Provide the evidence that leads you to believe this is a possibility. But, if you say "how do you know that scientific laws did govern 6,000 years ago (or however long they claim)", the only honest, reasonable, and respectful position is to admit that you cannot come up with any reasoning or evidence that suggests they were different.
