Protons and neutrons began to react with each other one to three minutes after the creation of the universe.What are you suggesting the mechanism is for creating order from energy? Where did it come from?
Upvote
0
Protons and neutrons began to react with each other one to three minutes after the creation of the universe.What are you suggesting the mechanism is for creating order from energy? Where did it come from?
Do you realize scientists have attempted experiments with amino acids and have yet to create life from non life.
Where did the laws of electromagnetism come from? Don't laws require law givers?
Indeed. Let's review your previous points:Do you realize scientists have attempted experiments with amino acids and have yet to create life from non life.
They're mathematical expressions for how electromagnetic fields and particles operate.Where did the laws of electromagnetism come from?
No, as it happens.Don't laws require law givers?
Do you realize that scientists have yet to see a supernatural deity create life in the lab, or any evidence whatsoever for a deity?
That's why creationism is not considered science, as it starts with the conlusion, then selectively accepts limited supporting evidence, while jettisoning boatloads of evidence to the contrary.I am a young earth creationist and have been for 25 years since my undergraduate years at UVa.
Short answer to your question: Scripture, properly understood and supported as a valid historical text, and Geology, shed of the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion and the uniformitarian problem, are probably the best evidence for creationism.
CB901: No MacroevolutionNeither have they seen nor can they see in the lab one species evolving from one form to another and yet they believe in it.
Such as . . . ?
I hear creationists say that we are ignoring evidence, but they never seem to produce this evidence.
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
"There are actually very few [physical] features linking chimps and humans," noted the Natural History Museum's Andrews. "The case for that is based almost entirely on molecular evidence."
And those molecular studies are flawed, Schwartz and Grehan say, because of the high likelihood that the data includes broadly shared DNA traits.
"When you're doing a really rigorous analysis of relationships, you don't just stop at the potential demonstration of similarity," Schwartz said. "You have to distinguish between features that are widely shared [among many species] and those that are more uniquely shared."
In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.
Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said."
The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to DNA and Protein Phylogeny - Science News - redOrbit
There are two basic problems with data analysis. In the first place, there are competing philosophies as to how data analysis is best approached. For example, there are frequentist, permutation, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses available for almost any data- analysis problem that you care to name, and this smorgasbord of choices wont necessarily all lead to the same conclusion. In the second place, your data may not meet the assumptions of the analysis that you have chosen, and the assumption violations may be enough to lead you astray when you are interpreting the results. Consequently, data analysis is often a trial-and-error affair, as various possibilities for analysis are explored and their outcomes evaluated. When describing this approach in a published paper, it requires more than just a passing reference to so-and-sos method, as can be done when describing an established protocol.
Anthropomics: March 2012
The gorilla genome is now out, and when combined with human, chimpanzee, and orangutan, it allows us to do a phylogenetic comparison.[3] We have known since the 1980s that human-chimp-gorilla genetically is a very close call, with DNA tending to place humans and chimps a little closer, but only with a lot of discordance or statistical noise. (That is in fact exactly what the ill-fated DNA hybridization showed, although it was infamously misrepresented.) When the mtDNA data first came out [4] they linked human to chimp pairwise, but only if you ignored the fact that over half of the phylogenetically informative DNA sites did not in fact show it to be human-chimp. Those data showed it to be chimp-gorilla and human-gorilla. The only way to extract human-chimp from those data was to treat the question like a Republican primary, where whoever gets the plurality of the votes wins the state. So human-chimp was Mitt Romney, winning the nomination, but with barely 45% of the phylogenetically informative sites.
It then becomes a trivial task to explain away the discordant data, that is to say, the 55% of your data that you have decided is giving you the wrong answers. You say it is incomplete lineage sorting or the result of ancestral polymorphisms, which have segregated into descendant taxa in a pattern different from the sequence of speciation. Geneticists illustrate this with images that always seem to remind me of maps of the London Underground, with chimpanzees being Bakerloo and humans Victoria Station.
I am a young earth creationist and have been for 25 years since my undergraduate years at UVa.
Short answer to your question: Scripture, properly understood and supported as a valid historical text,
and Geology, shed of the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion and the uniformitarian problem, are probably the best evidence for creationism.
You do realise, don't you, that they're not real scientific journals, right? That simply tacking on the phrase 'peer-reviewed' doesn't mean that they actually are?What evidence does it disregard? Creationist truth better explains the facts and evidence than evolutionary theory.
Why do you not consider what creation scientists do as science? Take a look at two of the peer-reviewed creation science journals, Answers Research Journal and Creation Science Research Quarterly. Identify one fact or piece of evidence any article uses that is false, a conclusion that an author reaches based on a logical fallacy or any criticism of their peer review process.
I assume you're referring to this article. If so, you may want to check the date - we've had decades of research, yet the Creationists can only find solace in works published in the late 50s and early 70s.If you look at the footnotes to this article, on creation.com entitled Radiometric Dating Age of Earth, there are articles from non-creationist peer-reviewed journals that acknowledge that those in the science profession often ignore evidence that is inconsistent with their long year assumptions.
Except for, y'know, all the other evidence. Geology, geography, genetics... and that's just the G's!The emphasis represented by caps is mine. The evolutionists have to solve this issue or the really have nothing.
Did you know that floods are somewhat common?Did you know that almost every human civilization has a flood narrative and many are strikingly similar to the Biblical account.
World wide floods where one family survived? In 200 narratives from different cultures here are the stats.
Is there a favored family? 88% [/font]
Were they forewarned? 66% [/font]
Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66% [/font]
Is catastrophe only a flood? 95% [/font]
Was flood global? 95% [/font]
Is survival due to a boat? 70% [/font]
Were animals also saved? 67% [/font]
Did animals play any part? 73% [/font]
Did survivors land on a mountain? 57% [/font]
Was the geography local? 82% [/font]
Were birds sent out? 35% [/font]
Was the rainbow mentioned? 7% [/font]
Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13% [/font]
Were specifically eight persons saved? 9% [/font]
If you look at the footnotes to this article, on creation.com entitled Radiometric Dating Age of Earth, there are articles from non-creationist peer-reviewed journals that acknowledge that those in the science profession often ignore evidence that is inconsistent with their long year assumptions.
I pointed out to him that I had never seen a satisfactory explanation as to how soft tissues, leaves et cetera became fossilized.
Did you know that almost every human civilization has a flood narrative and many are strikingly similar to the Biblical account.
The Geological record also support the Biblical account.