Data that confirms creationism

jon1101 · #1 22nd May 2002, 05:02 PM

I've posted a thread similar to this some time ago, but due to poor wording on my part it never got anywhere.

Anyway, I'd like to see what you all consider the best SCIENTIFIC support for creationism. If you do not consider creation to be a scientific issue but rather theological, more power to you but please do not post verses from Genesis saying how God created the earth. Also, please refrain from posting attacks on evolution unless they specifically support creationism. Refuting one does not prove the other. I am also especially interested in any predictions made by creationists that have proved correct.

Creationsists often times talk about how their science operates independently of religion, hence the drive for creationism in public schools. I would like this thread to simply examination of and a voice to this creation science.

One last note: the last time I posted a thread of this nature it appeared as if it was simply my meathod of shooting down creationist arguments. I understand that it may look this way at times, but I really am interested in the science behind creationism. I am currently undecided on the issue but I would absolutely love to believe the creationists. Regardless of this desire, however, I will first need to see creation science's science.

-jon

chickenman · #2 22nd May 2002, 09:21 PM

this is one short thread

Ray K · #3 22nd May 2002, 09:32 PM

Evidence for creationism

1. The universe exists

2. Current scientific evidence indicates that the universe began at a previous point in time (as opposed to always existing in its current state)

3. The Solar System and Earth also have definite starting points in time.

4. Current scientific evidence points to an large amount of fortituitous conditions to occur to support the formation and support of life long enough for the advancement to intelligence.

5. New species appear abruptly in the fossil record.

I am an atheist, but current knowledge in no way rules out deistic belief systems.

Oh wait. Were you talking about Biblical creation? Sorry, I can't help you with that one.

Jerry Smith · #4 22nd May 2002, 09:57 PM

2. Current scientific evidence indicates that the universe began at a previous point in time (as opposed to always existing in its current state)

I'm not up on cosmology, but I thought current scientific thinking and/or evidence was that time began with the universe, so that it did not begin to exist at any point in time...

4. Current scientific evidence points to an large amount of fortituitous conditions to occur to support the formation and support of life long enough for the advancement to intelligence.

This evidence for creation (by an intelligent entity at least) is very weak. For one, "fortuitous" speaks of probability, and we cannot estimate the probabilities for the conditions to occur that allow the formation and support of life. In this little corner of this particular universe, the probability can be calculated at 100%... for this particular form of life, anyway...

5. New species appear abruptly in the fossil record.

Relatively. The combined evidence from the fossil record and many other fields makes the strongest case for evolution. Continuous spontaneous creation of new species from inanimate matter or from the vacuum is a poor fit for the evidence, and is contrary to the known laws of nature...

I'll leave rest.. I know you were speaking in good humor, but I felt it the most responsible thing to point out that some of that evidence doesn't work for creation even under a deist scheme. I think creation-by-outside entity (whether YEC style or whether deistically speaking) is at this point a strictly faith-based idea.

mac_philo · #5 23rd May 2002, 04:41 AM

<< < pin dropping > >>

Ray K · #6 23rd May 2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I'm not up on cosmology, but I thought current scientific thinking and/or evidence was that time began with the universe, so that it did not begin to exist at any point in time...

I think that the difference between "creation within time" and "creation of time" is really inconsequential. All it does is move the creator outside of time.

This evidence for creation (by an intelligent entity at least) is very weak. For one, "fortuitous" speaks of probability, and we cannot estimate the probabilities for the conditions to occur that allow the formation and support of life. In this little corner of this particular universe, the probability can be calculated at 100%... for this particular form of life, anyway...

Well, I disagree and I don't use the ignorant statistical arguments of creationists concerning randomness.

I, for one, do not believe that the universe is designed to be hospitable to life. As many will point out, 99.9999999999% of the known universe (might need some more nines) cannot support life.

The Anthropic Principle ("we're here so it must be a 100% chance") is very weak. In fact, I consider it the atheist equivalent of "God did it" because it assumes the answer and inhibits further investigation.

Look at the statistically independent events possibly required for life:

1) the solar system must exist within a narrow band in our spiral galaxy
2) the mass of the sun must be within a specific range
3) the mass of the planet containing life must be within a specific range and distance
4) large planets need to exist further out into the system for ejecting planetesimals out of the system
5) the life-containing planet must have some system for recycling carbon into the atmosphere

These are not trivial probabilities, although they affect the probability of life in different ways.

I certainly think there is plenty of room to disregard an Anthropic position in favor of a Deistic one. I am not a Deist, but I believe it is a tenable position to take.

Relatively. The combined evidence from the fossil record and many other fields makes the strongest case for evolution. Continuous spontaneous creation of new species from inanimate matter or from the vacuum is a poor fit for the evidence, and is contrary to the known laws of nature...

Well, I think you can believe in a general creation with accepting "Continuous spontaneous creation of new species from inanimate matter", but maybe that's not the point of the topic.

The paucity of the fossil record does not rule out theistic evolution.

I'll leave rest.. I know you were speaking in good humor, but I felt it the most responsible thing to point out that some of that evidence doesn't work for creation even under a deist scheme. I think creation-by-outside entity (whether YEC style or whether deistically speaking) is at this point a strictly faith-based idea.

Seriously, what kind of evidence could there be for a deistic system beyond the fact of our existence? The improbabilities of life according to known science and confirmed by astronomical observations (and even SETI) provides the best we can get for deism -- an inference.

LiveFreeOrDie · #7 23rd May 2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Ray K
Look at the statistically independent events possibly required for life:

1) the solar system must exist within a narrow band in our spiral galaxy
2) the mass of the sun must be within a specific range
3) the mass of the planet containing life must be within a specific range and distance
4) large planets need to exist further out into the system for ejecting planetesimals out of the system
5) the life-containing planet must have some system for recycling carbon into the atmosphere

These are not trivial probabilities, although they affect the probability of life in different ways.

Remember, though, that whatever small probability the above analysis gives, when you multiply this times the number of stars in the universe, roughly 10^21, it is likely that you would end up with a rather large number.

In other words, the appearance of life in the universe may be darn near inevitable.

jon1101 · #8 23rd May 2002, 01:46 PM

Eh? I post a request for evidence to support creationism and I get a bunch of evolutionists sitting around waiting for the opposition to show up, quibbling over some stuff to burn time.

-jon

Jerry Smith · #9 23rd May 2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Ray K
I think that the difference between "creation within time" and "creation of time" is really inconsequential. All it does is move the creator outside of time.

If the creator exists, as such, then yes it would necessarily exist outside a time. I posted this remark simply because from your statement:

2. Current scientific evidence indicates that the universe began at a previous point in time (as opposed to always existing in its current state)

seemed to indicate that there was some importance to the universe beginning to exist in the past, rather than having existed for all of time. I don't know if there is any importance to it or not, but if there is, then it is good to note that the universe has existed for all of time, and did not come into existence at a previous point in time.

Well, I disagree and I don't use the ignorant statistical arguments of creationists concerning randomness.

I don't understand your disagreement. I just can't figure out what you meant about "fortituitous conditions". The conditions do allow life. To say this is fortuitous would usually mean that they allow life despite the odds. That doesn't make sense when you can't know the odds.

I, for one, do not believe that the universe is designed to be hospitable to life. As many will point out, 99.9999999999% of the known universe (might need some more nines) cannot support life.

I agree, but the anthropic argument cuts both ways: most of the known universe cannot support life of the kind we are familiar with. We cannot say that any of it is necessarily inimicable to any conceivable life form.

The Anthropic Principle ("we're here so it must be a 100% chance&quot is very weak. In fact, I consider it the atheist equivalent of "God did it" because it assumes the answer and inhibits further investigation.

The Anthropic Principle is merely an observation, and a demonstration that anthropic coincidence does not prove design or creation. What kind of investigation do you think the Anthropic Principle is inhibiting? What answer do you think AP assumes?

Look at the statistically independent events possibly required for life:

1) the solar system must exist within a narrow band in our spiral galaxy
2) the mass of the sun must be within a specific range
3) the mass of the planet containing life must be within a specific range and distance
4) large planets need to exist further out into the system for ejecting planetesimals out of the system
5) the life-containing planet must have some system for recycling carbon into the atmosphere

These are not trivial probabilities, although they affect the probability of life in different ways.

a) These only apply to one particular kind of life
b) How do you compute the probability that a universe, galaxy, or whatever will or will not have these features?
If you cannot compute the probability because you don't know what alternative scenarios exist for our universe and whether this is the only one, what meaningful conclusions can you draw from the so-called "probabilities"?

I certainly think there is plenty of room to disregard an Anthropic position in favor of a Deistic one. I am not a Deist, but I believe it is a tenable position to take.

Tenable, of course, from a perspective of faith. But it doesn't follow from the evidence, and it doesn't make unique predictions that can be confirmed or falsified by the evidence. It is merely a speculative interpretation of the evidence.

Well, I think you can believe in a general creation with accepting "Continuous spontaneous creation of new species from inanimate matter", but maybe that's not the point of the topic.

I may have misunderstood point 5. about new species appearing in the fossil record.

The paucity of the fossil record does not rule out theistic evolution.

Doesn't rule out much of anything really. I can't figure out anything that it is evidence for, apart from the fact that fossilization is rare.

Seriously, what kind of evidence could there be for a deistic system beyond the fact of our existence?

Deistic creation doesn't follow necessarily from the fact of our existence, so the fact of our existence cannot reasonably said to be evidence of deistic creation is far as I can tell.

The improbabilities of life according to known science and confirmed by astronomical observations (and even SETI) provides the best we can get for deism -- an inference.

The improbabilities of life can't be computed though, and I can't see how they could be "confirmed" by astronomical observations or the so-far unsuccessful SETI.
An unsupported inference is not evidence, especially when it is not the only inference one could make with equal justification..

I may have misunderstood you altogether.. maybe you were presenting an argument that scientific evidence is not strictly incompatible with deistic creation. If that was the case, then I have no real objection to it. I was under the impression that you were presenting bits of evidence in favor of deistic creation.

npetreley · #10 23rd May 2002, 02:01 PM

Look at the statistically independent events possibly required for life:

Here's a longer list of variables that, if they were changed too much in either direction, would have caused the universe to be uninhabitable by life (for a variety of reasons). I'm not crazy about everything in this list, but it's still interesting.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/E...eUniverse.html

Some samples:

1 Gravitational coupling constant

If larger: No stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans

If smaller: No stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

2 Strong nuclear force coupling constant

If larger: No hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable

If smaller: No elements other than hydrogen

3 Weak nuclear force coupling constant

If larger: All hydrogen is converted to helium in the big bang, hence too much heavy elements

If smaller: No helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements

4 Electromagnetic coupling constant

If larger: No chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission

If smaller: No chemical bonding

5 Ratio of protons to electrons formation

If larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

If smaller: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

6 Ratio of electron to proton mass

If larger: No chemical bonding

If smaller: No chemical bonding