Why doesnt creationism need any data?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Their whole theory is built upon an assumption(s) and they expect us to ignore the historical records in favor of an assumption(s). :doh:

The constancy of physical forces is an observation, not an assumption. What you and dad have now admitted is that every physical law would have to be different in order for creationism to be true. I would have to agree with you guys, but that is also why I and the rest of the scientific community rejects creationism. When you have to change physical laws to reach your conclusion it isn't the physical laws that are flawed, it is your conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
All present state in the past belief based. The way that viri transferred was not as it now is unless we had a present state. The way decay exists is a present state feature. You NEED to prove there was this state in the past, NOT first assume it.

That is shown every day in astronomy. The physical forces that astronomers observe in distant galaxies are the exact forces we observe today. If the laws of physics were different in the past it would show up in the field of astronomy, but it hasn't. The only reason that you want these laws to be different is that you don't like the conclusion that the evidence leads to. You have zero evidence for physical forces or laws that were different in the past while science has mountains of evidence that they were the same. I will go with the evidence and ignore your fantasies.

Only God could be responsible judging by the evidence.

So says a man.

Hey you could claim Darwin farted rose pedals, but you will not have hundreds of holy witnesses and millions of people dying to verify that. This is where you are at. Act like it.

How is the gullibility of others my problem? If you really think that writing something down makes it true then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Were you there to observe them lying, or making mistakes, or not being inspired of God? No. Act like it.

Were you there, son? No. Act like it.

So, unless you can show us that there is reason to trust them, stay at the kiddie table.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Religion stays static because it avoids evidence.

You guys are afraid to try.

That's a good point. We might not have all the right answers through science, yet, but at least scientists are trying. Whereas Biblists and other religionists seem afraid to even try to be correct. I guess when you build your entire worldview and belief system on a foundation of self-delusion, it's a little scary to try to mess with it and feel like your entire life is crumbling around you.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Unless it's Catholicism, which likes to begrudgingly concede to reason and evidence, ages after the rest of us.

Well, like any bureaucracy, there's a bit of a backlog.

They did get around to pardoning Galileo a couple of decades ago, after all.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Astridhere - what part of the criteria for ape do humans not meet? If you continue to persist in saying humans are not apes, I will continue to ask you this question. You haven't answered it yet (though no doubt you'll protest that humans have advanced language skills and intelligence which simply shows you don't understand the question).

Psudopod, I have replied many times and said an ape does not meet the criteria of humans due to not having sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability.

It is not the arms and legs that distinguishes mankind from beast and non humans primates.



Mammaliaformes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a mammaliform

Plesiadapis.

So whatevever creature was the first monkey or ape may not have had long arms like non human primates do now, eg chimps. Indeed it looks like the legs are longer than the arms in plesiadapis. Even today the tree swingers have longer arms that those that do not.

As I do not believe in a common ancestor for all mammals, quite clearly to me anyway, what you have found is fossil evidence of creatures like squirrels and mice, stacks of apes, right up until mankind is found in the fossil record dated to 3.7mya with the Laetoli footprints, and these footprints could not possibly belong to a 3.5ft, curved fingered ape.

As a creationist I look to discontinuity between kinds. I may not be able to answer every question definitiely about every single species and virus but that is OK as neither can evolutionists.

The fact that God reused His great ideas and best designs in various creatures, like giving frogs and mankind the same legs and whales and primates the same neural spindles means He did not need to reinvent the wheel with each and every creation.

So again let me say the difference between man and beast is sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability and these are required to light and control fires, make stone huts, and understand Gods' instructions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a good point. We might not have all the right answers through science, yet, but at least scientists are trying. Whereas Biblists and other religionists seem afraid to even try to be correct. I guess when you build your entire worldview and belief system on a foundation of self-delusion, it's a little scary to try to mess with it and feel like your entire life is crumbling around you.

No that I am afraid is showing a great deal of ignorance. I alone have produced helium dating and links to some of the science that stands behind creation. Other have also provided creationist evidence and science. Just because you do not read the links or unaware of the information is a lacking on your part, not ours.

It may be fun to spend your time ridiculing creationists but it is extremely erraneous.

It is very much about interpretation of the evidence and data and creationists can interpret the data to suit just as well as evolutionists, but based on different assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not only stable, but down right Fossilized.

No actually creationist predictions have stood the test of time, unlike evolutionists that cannot hang on to any evidence longer that the time it takes a book to go to print.

Or better data. Why would they "need" to change? You continue to insist that "change is bad."
Change shows instability. LUCA is dead and so is Darwin's theory. You cannot hold up irrefutable evidence for evolution eg LUCA then discredit it and say what you are producing is science.

When this sort of thing happens, which is all the time, I as a creationist think evolutionary scientists are straw grabbing and the constant changes are proof of the accusation.


Tell us all one more time what data would NOT support creationist paradigms. I keep asking but you don't answer. Wonder why.....
Yep answered yet again below. Maybe this time you will actually absorb the information.


Like how mankind interprets books written by mankind? Or maybe, you don't actually reason when you interpret scripture... that is a distinct possibility...
As I said I prefer to put faith in a book that demonstrated a higher intelligence behind it than in mankind that produces unstable and always changing scenarios to keep evolution alive. Your choice and my choice. I just think I have the upper hand of the two choices


If self-correcting = "unstable." How do you determine when you are wrong about scripture, again?I do not use scripture to support creation. I use science to support creation, which also happens to be the basis of the bible


I don't think it is I that has trouble reasoning!

I have stated many times that junk DNA does not sit with creationism and was one of the things you guys used to run into creationists. Now you have found junk DNA is not junk at all.

Vestigal organs do not align with creationism and once again this used to be run into creationists and still is. However scientists are also finding this assertion erraneous as they do have function. eg human apendix.

An ape like creature, eg the erraneous sketches of Neanderthal years ago, the bent over half ape half human, that can discuss afterlife would also suffice to disprove creation, but you cannot produce one of them as evidence either as they all mysteriously became extinct. How unfortunate!.

What you can present as evidence for evolution is a list of misrepresented kinds and species thrown into family ranks and non plausible scenarios, but no evidence that discredits creation.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Psudopod, I have replied many times and said an ape does not meet the criteria of humans due to not having sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability.

Groups of species are not determined by their differences. It is determined by shared characteristics. I can point to a ton of differences between bears and bats, but both are still mammals because of the features that they share.

It is not the arms and legs that distinguishes mankind from beast and non humans primates.

Yes, it is, among other physical features.

As I do not believe in a common ancestor for all mammals, . . .

We don't care what you believe or don't believe. We are interested in what you can demonstrate through evidence.

and these footprints could not possibly belong to a 3.5ft, curved fingered ape.

Why not?

As a creationist I look to discontinuity between kinds.

So how can chimps and gorillas be in the same kind? Gorilla features are discontinuous with the chimp range. Chihuahua features are discontinuous with the great dane range, so they are separate created kinds as well, according to your criteria.

What you seem to ignore is that a transitional would be outside of the modern human physical range. It has to be, by definition. You can't be intermediate if you are exactly like the thing you are supposed to be intermediate to. If asked if orange is an intermediate color between red and yellow you would answer "NO" because orange is not red. How does that make sense?

The fact that God reused His great ideas and best designs in various creatures, like giving frogs and mankind the same legs and whales and primates the same neural spindles means He did not need to reinvent the wheel with each and every creation.

So why didn't God reuse feathers when he made bats? Why didn't penguins get mammary glands like seals have?

So again let me say the difference between man and beast is sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability and these are required to light and control fires, make stone huts, and understand Gods' instructions.

How are these things required of other apes in order for them to share a common ancestor with humans?
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No that I am afraid is showing a great deal of ignorance. I alone have produced helium dating and links to some of the science that stands behind creation. Other have also provided creationist evidence and science. Just because you do not read the links or unaware of the information is a lacking on your part, not ours.

It may be fun to spend your time ridiculing creationists but it is extremely erraneous.

It is very much about interpretation of the evidence and data and creationists can interpret the data to suit just as well as evolutionists, but based on different assumptions.

Which assumptions do creationists use?

Which assumptions do scientists use?

How can we test to see if those assumptions are correct?
 
Upvote 0

cubinity

jesus is; the rest is commentary.
Jun 11, 2010
3,171
403
✟20,090.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Which assumptions do creationists use?

Genesis, in my native language and favorite translation, as interpreted by me and my church, is the objective truth, regardless of any indication of the contrary.

Which assumptions do scientists use?

Peer review improves objectivity. Thus, credibility comes with careful communication of test practices so they can be effectively repeated, reviewed and verified by others, including opponents.

How can we test to see if those assumptions are correct?

When a person that wants to prove you wrong does what you did and gets results that support your assumptions rather than their own, I would say that is a pretty solid test. When even the people that share your biases run your tests and can't get the same results, I would say that is a pretty solid test, too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
No actually creationist predictions have stood the test of time, unlike evolutionists that cannot hang on to any evidence longer that the time it takes a book to go to print.

Creationist predictions failed more than 200 years ago. Adam Sedgwick sums it up well:

"Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
"
Adam Sedgwick, 1831

Creationism was falsified 180 years ago. It's predictions failed. They are still wrong.

Change shows instability.

It shows honesty.

LUCA is dead

Since when? Has someone found an organism that does not use the same codon tables as the rest of life?




I have stated many times that junk DNA does not sit with creationism and was one of the things you guys used to run into creationists. Now you have found junk DNA is not junk at all.

There is DNA in every genome that is most certainly junk DNA. Researchers removed a 1 million base pair chunk of junk DNA from the mouse genome. Guess what happened? Nothing. The mice were unaffected.

Vestigal organs do not align with creationism and once again this used to be run into creationists and still is. However scientists are also finding this assertion erraneous as they do have function. eg human apendix.

Vestigial does not mean functionless. Vestigial means that an organ serves a rudimentary or secondary function compared to the same organ in another species. This is why the human appendix is vestigial. In other species the appendix is a much larger organ that is used to house bacteria that digest cellulose. This is the primary function of the appendix as part of the caecum. It does NOT serve this purpose in humans. Instead, it serves a very rudimentary role of simply housing commensal bacteria as an afterthought, at times to the detriment of the host.

Another great example is the extensor coccygis muscle. This muscle spans a fused joint in the human tailbone. It is a completely useless muscle since the joint can not flex at all. In other species it is used to lift the tail.

It would appear that creationism is now falsifed. There is junk DNA and there are vestigial organs.

As I said I prefer to put faith in a book that demonstrated a higher intelligence behind it

Why do you need to put your faith in anything? Why not look at the evidence and see where it leads?


An ape like creature, eg the erraneous sketches of Neanderthal years ago, the bent over half ape half human, that can discuss afterlife would also suffice to disprove creation, but you cannot produce one of them as evidence either as they all mysteriously became extinct. How unfortunate!.

So you are saying that, according to evolution, every human ancestor down the line was capable of discussing an afterlife?

What you can present as evidence for evolution is a list of misrepresented kinds and species thrown into family ranks and non plausible scenarios, but no evidence that discredits creation.

How did you determine that they are misrepresented?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Since when? Has someone found an organism that does not use the same codon tables as the rest of life?
Yes, actually. There are quite a few alternative genetic codes found here and there -- many in mitochondria, some in bacteria. All are closely related to the standard code, however, and could clearly have evolved from it. In an organism with a small genome, rarely used codons may become superfluous, and a change in their mapping can occur without ill effects.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The constancy of physical forces is an observation, not an assumption. What you and dad have now admitted is that every physical law would have to be different in order for creationism to be true. I would have to agree with you guys, but that is also why I and the rest of the scientific community rejects creationism. When you have to change physical laws to reach your conclusion it isn't the physical laws that are flawed, it is your conclusion.
Uniformitarianism is not an observation, it is an assumption about the past that is based on the interpretation of the present. And it is an assumption that not all scientists agree with, not only creationists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Uniformitarianism is not an observation,

Yes, it is. Astronomy has confirmed uniformitarianism. Everywhere they look they observe the same physical laws through both space and time.

One example is Supernova 1987a:

Supernova 1987a

They were able to confirm that the speed of light and rates of radioactive decay were the same 160,000 years ago as they are now. Each and every star that scientists look at produce the same spectrographic results as elements on Earth do, confirming that chemistry and physics were the same in the past.

In astronomy, you can literally look to see what the laws of physics were in the past. Observations of distant stars and galaxies is direct observation of the past.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.