has evolution replaced creationism?

[wartorious]

hey all. I have not been around much lately, how is every one?

as I understand it creationism is the theory God created the earth around 5000 years ago in a week and nothing has changed since the world was first created apart from us.


Firstly we now know the universe is a good 13 billion years old. some could say God wants us to think the universe is old however if we did all came from Adam and eve then how come mankind has spread across the planet in such a huge way? we have documents and artifacts much older than 5000 years anyhow! so creationism, the date the universe started seems to be wrong, however it was the best science of 1800 years ago.

if we all came from Adam and eve then how come there are thousands of races of humans? There are over 250 races of human in Africa alone. if evolution is rubbish and we don't change over time how do you explain this?

we created modern horses, pigs, farm animals, strawberries, ect, through selective breeding. this seems to support evolution, the survival of the fittest over millions of years with mutation and adaptation has produced the modern creatures and plants and we can change them too.

maybe God created us using evolution, this could have happened although if we can change creatures what part has God played? surely this just further suggests creationism belongs in history books?


What I really wish to know is is there any evidence for creationism apart from "Blind faith". How can people rationally believe in creationism when there's no evidence? is there evidence? I really want to know how intelligent sensible human beings can justify believing what they do? I don't really understand and I would like to. Do you understand evolution fully? what do you get taught in schools in the USA and other places about the theory of evolution?

 

[gluadys]

Mainly, I agree with your post. I have one quibble with the title though.

Creationism claims to be an alternate scientific theory, but as your post indicates, as a scientific theory it has been well and truly falsified. It does belong in the history books right along with the phlogisten theory of fire and the humour theory of disease.

So most people actually hold on to creationism by faith, not by evidence.

In this respect, I hope evolution never replaces creationism, as evolution should remain science and people should be willing to discard it if and when it is falsified by the evidence, and not stubbornly cling to it as a matter of belief.

You probably didn't intend to suggest anything like that in your title, but I thought it a worthwhile point to make.

 

[Biblewriter]

Evolution has indeed replaced creationism in the minds of those who cannot think for themselves.

While there is very little well known scientific evidence for creationism, there is a great deal of well known evidence that evolution cannot be correct. But this information, though well known, continues to be ignored.

A few examples from my own background will suffice.

In my university days, I was ridiculed by one professor in particular for not believing in evolution. But I was dating that professor's lab assistant, and he told her that evolution was really not a very good explanation of the facts.

In the same university, one professor taught beginning students the theory of recapitulation as one of the proofs of evolution. But the same professor taught advanced embryology students that actually, this was outside of the facts.

In an advanced genetics class, I presented proof that there was no more than a 50% probability that an average of one beneficial mutation per gene could occur in an average human population in anything less than 100,000 years, but that the data included absolutely no information as to how much longer it might have taken. Only that there was no more than a 50% probability that it could have taken place in less than 100,000 years. The professor declared to the class that it was "one of the best, if not the best, paper I have received in my twenty year's teaching experience." Then he privately asked me why I, an avowed creationists, would offer such good evidence for evolution. I think he was the only person in the class that failed to understand that I had just presented strong evidence against his favorite theory.

 

[KerrMetric]

In my university days, I was ridiculed by one professor in particular for not believing in evolution. But I was dating that professor's lab assistant, and he told her that evolution was really not a very good explanation of the facts.

LOL - can anyone say hearsay and apocryphal quickly?

In the same university, one professor taught beginning students the theory of recapitulation as one of the proofs of evolution. But the same professor taught advanced embryology students that actually, this was outside of the facts.

Now tell us what he really said.

In an advanced genetics class, I presented proof that there was no more than a 50% probability that an average of one beneficial mutation per gene could occur in an average human population in anything less than 100,000 years,

Please post this "proof".

 

[USincognito]

While there is very little well known scientific evidence for creationism, there is a great deal of well known evidence that evolution cannot be correct. But this information, though well known, continues to be ignored.

It's been over 40 years since Whitcomb and Morris stole Price's flood geology ideas, his own work published almost 85 years ago, so when are we even going to see the geological evidence for Creationism? The ICR has been around for almost 40 years, and AiG's precourser was around in the 70s. Darwin's trip on the Beagle was in the early 1830s and he was published about 20 years later.

What's taking Creationists so long to come up with some scientific evidence?

In the same university, one professor taught beginning students the theory of recapitulation as one of the proofs of evolution. But the same professor taught advanced embryology students that actually, this was outside of the facts.

I'm guessing that he taught a dumbed down version of embryology for the beginners and taught the advanced students that recapitulation wasn't valid though he probably taught them a (now) archaic version of ontogeny.

In an advanced genetics class, I presented proof that there was no more than a 50% probability that an average of one beneficial mutation per gene could occur in an average human population in anything less than 100,000 years, but that the data included absolutely no information as to how much longer it might have taken. Only that there was no more than a 50% probability that it could have taken place in less than 100,000 years. The professor declared to the class that it was "one of the best, if not the best, paper I have received in my twenty year's teaching experience." Then he privately asked me why I, an avowed creationists, would offer such good evidence for evolution. I think he was the only person in the class that failed to understand that I had just presented strong evidence against his favorite theory.

You wouldn't still happen to have a copy of that paper around would you? I'm sure sfs would love to take a look at it, even though its 40+ years out of date.

 

[USincognito]

as I understand it creationism is the theory God created the earth around 5000 years ago in a week and nothing has changed since the world was first created apart from us.

Actually no. Creationism has, begrudingly, moved from fixity of the species to accepting "microevolution", which of course is a meaningless term outside of this debate. Some even go so far as to accept a sort of hyperevolution of "kinds" (mostly genuses and families) but only from originally created kinds. They also, because of the Flood narrative, think that the Earth looks nothing like it did before that event and some go so far as to claim things like the laws of physics changed after the Fall in Eden or the Flood.

Unfortunately all of this is just ad hoc response to science they cannot deny even as they find ways to desperately deny all the other evidence that they can't create ad hoc responses to.

There are over 250 races of human in Africa alone.

A semantic quibble. There is one species of humans in Africa and world wide for that matter. There are 4 basic "races" (East Asians, Caucasians and sub-Continental Indians, Africans and Native Americans) and even the are mixed with "ring-ethnicities", self-nest (NAs are subset of East Asians, everyone is African if we go back far enough) but I'm getting away from my quibble.

In the "How Africa Became Black" chapter of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel he makes a pretty compelling case that there are 4 basic races native to Africa. "Whites" which include Somolis, Ethiopians, and Saharan Arabs. "Pygmys" who reside in Central Africa. "Blacks" comprised of Nhilo-Saharan and Bantu speaking peoples. And "Khoisan" people in the Namib, Kalahari and South Africa.

I think 250 would be a number closer to describing the number of ethnicities because I think there's even more than that number of languages spoken there.

 

[Biblewriter]

It's been over 40 years since Whitcomb and Morris stole Price's flood geology ideas, his own work published almost 85 years ago, so when are we even going to see the geological evidence for Creationism? The ICR has been around for almost 40 years, and AiG's precourser was around in the 70s. Darwin's trip on the Beagle was in the early 1830s and he was published about 20 years later.

What's taking Creationists so long to come up with some scientific evidence?

The operative words in my sentence were "well known." I believe there is a significant amount of scientific evidence for creationism, but most of it is not well known, such as the c14 content of diamonds.

I'm guessing that he taught a dumbed down version of embryology for the beginners and taught the advanced students that recapitulation wasn't valid though he probably taught them a (now) archaic version of ontogeny.

My point was that this professor taught it as proof of evolution, even while fully aware that it was incorrect.

You wouldn't still happen to have a copy of that paper around would you? I'm sure sfs would love to take a look at it, even though its 40+ years out of date.

Maybe I could find a copy, but who is sfs?

 

[notto]

In my university days, I was ridiculed by one professor in particular for not believing in evolution. But I was dating that professor's lab assistant, and he told her that evolution was really not a very good explanation of the facts.

In the same university, one professor taught beginning students the theory of recapitulation as one of the proofs of evolution. But the same professor taught advanced embryology students that actually, this was outside of the facts.

If you consider this 'evidence' against evolution, then you really have a weak case. You do understand that neither of these is any type of evidence whatesoever, right?

In an advanced genetics class, I presented proof that there was no more than a 50% probability that an average of one beneficial mutation per gene could occur in an average human population in anything less than 100,000 years, but that the data included absolutely no information as to how much longer it might have taken. Only that there was no more than a 50% probability that it could have taken place in less than 100,000 years. The professor declared to the class that it was "one of the best, if not the best, paper I have received in my twenty year's teaching experience." Then he privately asked me why I, an avowed creationists, would offer such good evidence for evolution. I think he was the only person in the class that failed to understand that I had just presented strong evidence against his favorite theory.

What university? What was the class? What degree were you working on to be taking this advanced class?

How did you collect your data and what data was used?

Unless you can demonstrate any of this, again, not really any sort of evidence against evolution at all. Simply hearsay and anecdote.

Not evidence.

 

[notto]

such as the c14 content of diamonds.

C14 in diamonds has a perfectly valid mainstream explanation. Can you offer anything that is an independent line of evidence for creationism?

Are you suggesting that the C14 in diamonds is atmospheric?

The C14 in diamonds claim of creationists is really a confused attempt at a rebuttle.

C14 isn't only created in the atmosphere. Atmospheric C14 incorporated into living things is used in dating.

Unless it can be shown that the C14 in diamonds was atmospheric and was not generated by other means (of which there are many underground) then it certainly is no evidence against evolution.

It is just another example of creationists cherrypicking data without really understanding the implications of what they are saying.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution will never replace creationism. Creationism is simply the belief that God created the universe and everything in it, and as such, it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory. I myself am an evolutionary creationist.
Evolutionary theory has replaced young earth creationism and other forms of anti-evolutionary creationism, although a minority of the world's seafood managers and housewives still refuse to accept it. Still, it remains the best-evidenced explanation for how we got here, and continues to be taught in classrooms and practiced in labs around the world. Like heliocentrism, evolution is here to stay, and certainly won't be replaced in our lifetimes. Ditto for general creationism.

 

[USincognito]

The operative words in my sentence were "well known." I believe there is a significant amount of scientific evidence for creationism, but most of it is not well known, such as the c14 content of diamonds.

Well known to the public or to people actively engaged in the Creation and Evolution debate? I'm not a Creationist and I'd dare say I'm more familiar with supposed scientific arguments for Creationism than most people who would self-identify as a Creationist... and what's wrong with those arguments.

My point was that this professor taught it as proof of evolution, even while fully aware that it was incorrect.
Maybe I could find a copy, but who is sfs?

Recapitulation is certainly incorrect, but we can learn a lot about evolution through the study of ontogeny as shown in the like I provided.

sfs is a geneticist who posts to Christianforums. If you find a copy, perhaps you could share a summary and he'll happen upon this thread.

 

[Biblewriter]

Well known to the public or to people actively engaged in the Creation and Evolution debate? I'm not a Creationist and I'd dare say I'm more familiar with supposed scientific arguments for Creationism than most people who would self-identify as a Creationist... and what's wrong with those arguments.



Recapitulation is certainly incorrect, but we can learn a lot about evolution through the study of ontogeny as shown in the like I provided.

sfs is a geneticist who posts to Christianforums. If you find a copy, perhaps you could share a summary and he'll happen upon this thread.

I will check and see if I can find a copy of my paper. If I find it, I will post it.

Since someone else asked. The university was the University of Kentucky, Murray branch. But at that time it was known as Murray State University. The course was titler Genetics, and the degree I was working toward was Science and Mathematics. As this is a little known degree, I will explain that this is a generalist degree, including specialization in Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, with additional courses in Geology and Psychology

 

[Dannager]

I believe there is a significant amount of scientific evidence for creationism, but most of it is not well known, such as the c14 content of diamonds.

Is this a new one, or just a creationist confusing the evidence? The only C-14 claim I've heard of is that there's too much of it in coal. Except even that isn't evidence for creationism, since the amount of C-14 in the coal points to a 40,000-year date, far older than YEC allows for. Is this a new one, or just redundant ignorance?

 

[Uphill Battle]

C14 in diamonds has a perfectly valid mainstream explanation. Can you offer anything that is an independent line of evidence for creationism?

Are you suggesting that the C14 in diamonds is atmospheric?

The C14 in diamonds claim of creationists is really a confused attempt at a rebuttle.

C14 isn't only created in the atmosphere. Atmospheric C14 incorporated into living things is used in dating.

Unless it can be shown that the C14 in diamonds was atmospheric and was not generated by other means (of which there are many underground) then it certainly is no evidence against evolution.

It is just another example of creationists cherrypicking data without really understanding the implications of what they are saying.

random thought, and it is not in support of or arguing against the C14 in Diamonds bit....

but if a "rational explanation" can be found as to why you could get anomalous results in dating... what compels you to trust other things being tested? Theoretically, couldn't any sample being tested be, in fact compromised?

 

[random_guy]

random thought, and it is not in support of or arguing against the C14 in Diamonds bit....

but if a "rational explanation" can be found as to why you could get anomalous results in dating... what compels you to trust other things being tested? Theoretically, couldn't any sample being tested be, in fact compromised?

I'm not a physicist, but I'd guess it's because you can determine whether or not something has been contaminated, and how much. Every measurement in science has some kind of "contamination", but we don't throw out our measurement system because of that. It'd be like never investigating a crime scene because contamination might have resulted so all information is useless.

 

[notto]

random thought, and it is not in support of or arguing against the C14 in Diamonds bit....

but if a "rational explanation" can be found as to why you could get anomalous results in dating... what compels you to trust other things being tested? Theoretically, couldn't any sample being tested be, in fact compromised?

C14 dating is not a valid method to date diamonds. Only creationists would suggest such a thing (and it is a suggestion based on ignorance or direct intent to mislead).

It would be fairly absurd to suggest that the consistency we find in independent dating methods against known sources are compromised. The consistency of multiple trials would allow us to trust it just like any other scientific testing.

You do understand that dating methods are tested against samples of known age and calibrated and checked against other measurements, right?

Anomalous results are just that. Most results have measurements of certainty and error associated with them. The consistency of dating of various samples shows us that they are for the most part valid and acceptable - ie trustworthy.

Creationists seem to try to sow doubt without really understanding the amount of effort that goes into making sure these tests are accurate and that they work. There is no value to scientists in a method that doesn't work.

Why don't creationists scrutinize other things as much as dating? Why not medical tests or structural integrity tests? Do you trust those? Why or why not? Could they not be 'compromised'?

This doesn't really have much to do with the C14 in diamonds. That is pretty much a strawman anyway. There is no reason that scientists would not expect to find c14 in diamonds under certain circumstances. The deceit of the creationists position on that is that they try to discredit dating based on atmospheric C14 by comparing it to C14 in diamonds which we know is not atmospheric.

 

[sfs]

While there is very little well known scientific evidence for creationism, there is a great deal of well known evidence that evolution cannot be correct. But this information, though well known, continues to be ignored.

I'm an working scientist in a field where evolution is a crucial part of what we do. I have to say that I am unaware of this information that you say is well known.

In an advanced genetics class, I presented proof that there was no more than a 50% probability that an average of one beneficial mutation per gene could occur in an average human population in anything less than 100,000 years, but that the data included absolutely no information as to how much longer it might have taken. Only that there was no more than a 50% probability that it could have taken place in less than 100,000 years. The professor declared to the class that it was "one of the best, if not the best, paper I have received in my twenty year's teaching experience." Then he privately asked me why I, an avowed creationists, would offer such good evidence for evolution. I think he was the only person in the class that failed to understand that I had just presented strong evidence against his favorite theory.

Is there any chance you could sketch your argument? I don't see how you could set such a limit without making some strong assumptions about things that aren't actually known. I should also point out that there is increasing experimental evidence that there have been hundreds of positively selected mutations in humans within the last ~25,000 years.

 

[Assyrian]

Diamonds can be up to 1% nitrogen. This is the stuff that is converted to C14 by thermal neutrons in the upper atmosphere. The thing is, there is quite a lot of radiation underground too which will result in the nitrogen in diamonds being converted to C14. YECs claim there is not enough to produce the C14 in diamonds and that it must have been there when the diamonds were created, but so far we haven't seen how they are sdupposed to have calculated this.

So the YEC argument does not depend on how astounding it seem that diamonds have any C14. They should have C14 because they contain nitrogen and the earth's mantle is radioactive, instead it depends on YEC being able to calculate the amount of thermal neutrons in the mantel hundreds of kilometers down inside the earth, and claim there is too much C14.