- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,914
- 1,529
- 18
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ahh, that makes sense. Welcome to the forums, I hope you stick around! New people are always welcome.
Upvote
0
Creation evidence?
- Thread starter seebs
- Start date
Ahh, that makes sense. Welcome to the forums, I hope you stick around! New people are always welcome.
seebs:
Heh! Thanks for the welcome!
When I first arrived at this board, I saw your initial post in this thread and thought I'd give you a link to the Hovind videos. I didn't expect the backlash I received from everyone, I thought I was helping.
I kinda got suckered into having to defend myself and ended up devoting more time to this thread than I ever intended, and very little time in the forums for which I initially joined the board in the first place. So, I think I'll gracefully bow out and wish everyone Shalom!
Shimon
Heh! Thanks for the welcome!
When I first arrived at this board, I saw your initial post in this thread and thought I'd give you a link to the Hovind videos. I didn't expect the backlash I received from everyone, I thought I was helping.
I kinda got suckered into having to defend myself and ended up devoting more time to this thread than I ever intended, and very little time in the forums for which I initially joined the board in the first place. So, I think I'll gracefully bow out and wish everyone Shalom!
Shimon
Upvote
0
In some cases, it is no evidence at all. Let me give an example. Lets say you ask me to present evidence for evolution and I respond this way: "Scientists think creation couldn't happen because deposits of chalk take too long to form for the earth to be only thousands of years old."
Well, I gave an argument that might sound convincing, but I didn't give any evidence of evolution, nor did I even give any evidence against creation. I just said that some people had a certain opinion, and that opinion was based on some undesignated assessment of how long it takes chalk deposits to form. At the most generous, I have offered and opinion about the possible existence of evidence that the earth is older than six thosand years old, assuming that chalk deposits actually exist, and assuming that they take as long as I have asserted they do to form.
What I should have done is this... I should have said "Chalk deposits of a great depth are inconsistent with a young earth. The reason is that Chalk deposits can only form very slowly, by the settling of dead plankton in still water. Because the plankton are so tiny, and only a certain number of them can live in the water at one time, only thin layers of chalk can be formed over short periods of time. At the observed rate of 15 microns per day, it would take ~1,000,000 years to create a chalk bed of a depth of 100 feet. Yet in Devonsonshireyork, New Ireland, there is a chalk deposit measured to 573 feet deep. Without some alternative explanation for the formation of chalk, we must see this as strong evidence against a 6,000 year old earth.
I just made this example up to show you the difference between presenting an example of evidence, and presenting opinions that are basically unrelated to the model we need evidence for (or against). Had I really been giving "evidence against creation", I would have, of course, included a citation to my source of information. That way, I will be honestly giving credit to the people who have done the research on this, and not allow anyone to mistake their work for my own. Just as importantly, I will have given you a place to go to find out whether what I told you was true, or whether I made it up, or even if I misunderstood the information at the source. You will also have the chance to check the accuracy of my source. My source will be either 1) primary, or 2) secondary. If it is primary, then you will expect them to have documented all of their methods, and all of their results. If it is secondary, you will expect them to have revealed their own sources, so you can check them the same way you check me.
This is the internet. I cannot upload an actual fossil, nor can you upload the actual temperature of the earth. But we can both be careful to post information that is accurate, and in a debate asking for evidence, we can point to actual evidence instead of mere opinion. Then, when we discuss actual evidence, we must be sure that the evidence exists. For instance, if I claim a fossil exists with many important traits unique to humans, but without certain traits that are universal to humans, or if I claim my fossil has certain characters that are more human like than any ape skeleton, yet more ape-like than any human skeleton, then I must give you some means by which you can satisfy any doubt you have about the veracity of that information. Finally, we will want to show how the evidence must bear on the debate.
To say that Io cools too quickly for Io to be billions of years old, is just opinion and assertion. The evidence would be: Io currently has a temperature, estimated by the best available method to be 214 degrees celcius. By standard the standard model of planetary formation (or by some other method clearly delineated) its original temperature at the time of its formation could not have been more than 18,000 degrees. The temperature loss of Io has been measured (or calculated by such & such method that takes all known relevant factors into consideration) at .05 degrees per year. This means the maximum age of Io must be ~355,500 years. Therefore Io is younger than the standard astronomical theories predict, and they must be called into question. I found this information here:
http://astrodata.org (current temperature of Io)
http://Io.info.com (temperature at formation and average temperature loss per year)
http://lotsa.sciencefacts.net (standard astronomical theory predictions)
Do you see where I am going with this?
I don't think that creation is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. Fortunately, for now, the courts agree. There is a good reason that no major university has a Department of Creation Research.
NO doubt some of them actually agree with you. But an unfounded opinion doesn't become founded on facts and evidence merely because one or two scientists agree with it (or because on or two others of them seem to).
When you get to the real nuts and bolts of 'evidence for creation' (which you really haven't provided much of), and 'evidence against evolution', (which you have provided somewhat more of), you find that little or none of it actually bears scrutiny. To introduce this kind of science into a classroom would do great damage to the creationist position. After showing that all of the evidence for creation is unsound, there will be nothing left to discuss of the creation model. Obviously, a knowledgeable teacher cannot present as fact scientific findings that are based on poor evidence and none....
Upvote
0
I wish I'd seen this before making my last post!!!
I understand your unwillingness to devote so much time to this one single debate. I will likewise bid you Shalom!
Upvote
0
Shimone, let me go through your list:
My challenge was, despite your snip, to list 5 non-fundamentalist Christians who work in a related field and have a problem with evolution. Let's go down your list of quotes, shall we?
1) Lipson: A physicist. That isn't a related field, is it?
2) Denton, who was a fundamentalist Christian at the time he wrote that. He's since changed his mind about Biblical literalism.
3) Denton again.
4) Jastrow: Goodness. I found quotes from this man discussing the Big Bang. He's a theistic evolutionist, from his own words. So he's got no problem with evolution.
5) Lipson again.
6) Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. Both are astronomers Wickramansinghe, in the Edwards case, referred to evolution as nonsense, and Creationism as "worse nonsense". Both writing outside their field.
7) Futuyama: This is a lovely misquote. Futuyama is the writer of the premier textbook on evolution.
8) Denton again.
9) De-Grasse: I find this quote in several places, but his degree, education, or expertise is never mentioned. Funny that, hmm?
10) Patterson: A well-known misquote. Patterson is discussing pattern systemetics. A classification system built on evolution.
11) Denton again.
12) An anonymous quote! Wow, what a useful thing that is!
13) Leigh: Strangely, I have the same problems as with De-Grasse. I find this quote, but never anything about him or his degree. Funny that.
I went through your first honking list of quotes. Not one even came close to meeting the criteria. I'm not bothering with the rest of your cut and paste job. I suggest you filter through them for relevance, if you want to use them as evidence.
This is a perfect example of the sort of thing we were dismissing Hovind for. It's a big honking list of quotes that look good, but when broken down aren't worth the paper they're written on. You've got out of context quotes, quotes from people well outside their fields (which makes their opinion of no more value than your plumber's on your brain tumor), and quotes from Biblical literalists who are, I might add, somewhat biased in that they know, prior to viewing any evidence, what the answer is. They know evolution is wrong, so no evidence can support it. *shrug*
My challenge was, despite your snip, to list 5 non-fundamentalist Christians who work in a related field and have a problem with evolution. Let's go down your list of quotes, shall we?
1) Lipson: A physicist. That isn't a related field, is it?
2) Denton, who was a fundamentalist Christian at the time he wrote that. He's since changed his mind about Biblical literalism.
3) Denton again.
4) Jastrow: Goodness. I found quotes from this man discussing the Big Bang. He's a theistic evolutionist, from his own words. So he's got no problem with evolution.
5) Lipson again.
6) Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. Both are astronomers Wickramansinghe, in the Edwards case, referred to evolution as nonsense, and Creationism as "worse nonsense". Both writing outside their field.
7) Futuyama: This is a lovely misquote. Futuyama is the writer of the premier textbook on evolution.
8) Denton again.
9) De-Grasse: I find this quote in several places, but his degree, education, or expertise is never mentioned. Funny that, hmm?
10) Patterson: A well-known misquote. Patterson is discussing pattern systemetics. A classification system built on evolution.
11) Denton again.
12) An anonymous quote! Wow, what a useful thing that is!
13) Leigh: Strangely, I have the same problems as with De-Grasse. I find this quote, but never anything about him or his degree. Funny that.
I went through your first honking list of quotes. Not one even came close to meeting the criteria. I'm not bothering with the rest of your cut and paste job. I suggest you filter through them for relevance, if you want to use them as evidence.
This is a perfect example of the sort of thing we were dismissing Hovind for. It's a big honking list of quotes that look good, but when broken down aren't worth the paper they're written on. You've got out of context quotes, quotes from people well outside their fields (which makes their opinion of no more value than your plumber's on your brain tumor), and quotes from Biblical literalists who are, I might add, somewhat biased in that they know, prior to viewing any evidence, what the answer is. They know evolution is wrong, so no evidence can support it. *shrug*
Upvote
0
- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Morat; so you say that physics has nothing to do with biology or chemistry, and vice versa. Oh... I seem to have to point out that each one of these sciences interact with each other. SO, if something is impossible chemistry, we cann't just make an exception for your faith in naturalism. Sorry.
I think the best way to sum up the creationist viewpoint without getting too technical is by an anology. Here goes...
If you were to find a cray supercomputer on the beach, would you say it was made by an intelligent being? Or would you say it just assembled itself out of the surrounding elements over a vast span of time, leaving no evidense of it's transformation except it's existance?
A quick observation : Even the simplest cell is vastly more complicated than the supercomputer. Both consist of hardware (the cell structure) and software (the exact organization of the chemical "letters in the DNA sequence). One of the two (ironicaly the more complicated one) you say happenned over billions of years by chance organization of random chemicals, while the other you would most definitely (I hope) admit was made by an intelligent designer. I will leave you to contemplate the blatant hypocracy that even a 6 year old can figure out.
Romans 1:22 " Professing to be wise, they became fools"
I think the best way to sum up the creationist viewpoint without getting too technical is by an anology. Here goes...
If you were to find a cray supercomputer on the beach, would you say it was made by an intelligent being? Or would you say it just assembled itself out of the surrounding elements over a vast span of time, leaving no evidense of it's transformation except it's existance?
A quick observation : Even the simplest cell is vastly more complicated than the supercomputer. Both consist of hardware (the cell structure) and software (the exact organization of the chemical "letters in the DNA sequence). One of the two (ironicaly the more complicated one) you say happenned over billions of years by chance organization of random chemicals, while the other you would most definitely (I hope) admit was made by an intelligent designer. I will leave you to contemplate the blatant hypocracy that even a 6 year old can figure out.
Romans 1:22 " Professing to be wise, they became fools"
Upvote
0
Oh sure. Chemistry is applied physics, and biology is a branch of applied chemistry.
But a physicist couldn't locate an appendix without a book, and certainly couldn't discen the geological history of by looking.
Heck, isn't medicine just applied biology? Why not have your biology instructor do your open heart surgery?
However, I am thrilled at your claim about "impossible chemistry". Please elaborate. I'm all ears.
As for the rest of your post, I am glad to say no one thinks life appeared and diversified by the chance assemblege of molecules. However, if someone does advance the "Random chance" hypothesis, we'll rest easy knowing you're ready to shoot it down.
Nope. We've got chemistry and evolution as our explanation Which is a far cry from "random chance".
Upvote
0
The only way creationists can get their point across is by analogies. Unfortunately analogies are not terribly useful as arguments.
Never heard that one before. It used to be a pocket watch. Creationists have come a long way in 200 years.
I thought you were appealing to physics?
I would take that as an insult if you could spell.
I'll say.
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
Me too. And I'll say it by quoting the whole section of Romans in context. Again.
Without any excuse, people turned away from the obvious evidence in creation to vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, stupid speculations.
Let's see -- vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, stupid speculation -- I'd submit that as the perfect description of what you folks are calling the scientific defense of evolution.
Professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves.
"Professing to be smart." Now let's see -- which side here constantly waves education credentials around as the support for their views?
Upvote
0
Nick, dear boy! This entire thread is about the "obvious evidence for creation" you mention.
And you know what? It's empty of any! The closest thing we've gotten is a few posts of quotes about who evolution is wrong, and one post of supposed "young earth" proofs which are actually just unsupported conclusions.
"Ganymede is hot, therefore the Solar System is young".
Notice the "therefore" in that sentence?
So Nick, why don't you post this "obvious evidence for creation". We'ld all love to see it.
And you know what? It's empty of any! The closest thing we've gotten is a few posts of quotes about who evolution is wrong, and one post of supposed "young earth" proofs which are actually just unsupported conclusions.
"Ganymede is hot, therefore the Solar System is young".
Notice the "therefore" in that sentence?
So Nick, why don't you post this "obvious evidence for creation". We'ld all love to see it.
Upvote
0
Nick,
Why won't you answer my anthrax thread if you're so convinced evolutionists are wrong? You're telling me that vain imaginings, foolish reasoning and stupid speculation of the evolutionists won't ever be able to answer where the anthrax virus originated from - that creationists could better solve that mystery???
- Joe
Why won't you answer my anthrax thread if you're so convinced evolutionists are wrong? You're telling me that vain imaginings, foolish reasoning and stupid speculation of the evolutionists won't ever be able to answer where the anthrax virus originated from - that creationists could better solve that mystery???
- Joe
Upvote
0
That pretty much sums up the scientific method right there, Nick. This is all we have ever been trying to say. The evidence for an old Earth and for biological evolution is clearly discernable in nature to all who are not blinded by literalist presuppositions.
Upvote
0
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
All right. I've been annoyed by npetreley's belligerently argumentative posts for a very long time. I consider him a bad witness for the Christian faith, and an overall frustrating person to deal with. But this awful exposition on Romans earns npetreley an ignore, no doubt. I'll enjoy the silence.
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
As opposed to the overwhelming numbers of transitional series you've provided in my challenge thread as the obvious evidence for evolution? Okay, I get it now.
Upvote
0
If you were wanting some obvious evidence for evolution, then why didn't you post a thread asking for it, instead of asking for fine-grained sequences of transitional fossils with photographs of each fossil, and not counting any from the vertebrates?
Are you afraid to just post a thread asking for some of the evidence for evolution? We aren't afraid to post threads asking for the evidence for creation... I'm going to go start a new thread now.
Upvote
0
- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
sOuljah; sorry, that may not have been necessary, but it's still true.
Morat; I admit to confusion. I thought evolution theory does use mutation (random chemistry) as the basis for providing new genetic information. This would constitute chance organization of random chemicals; as in the origin of the DNA molecule, and the addition of new information by mutation.
Scarlatti; fine. Attack the USE of an analogy because you can't refute it. Attack my spelling, my choice of words, whatever.
[GLOW=orangered]Note that nowhere is there a refutation of the validity of the analogy.[/GLOW]
Morat; I admit to confusion. I thought evolution theory does use mutation (random chemistry) as the basis for providing new genetic information. This would constitute chance organization of random chemicals; as in the origin of the DNA molecule, and the addition of new information by mutation.
Scarlatti; fine. Attack the USE of an analogy because you can't refute it. Attack my spelling, my choice of words, whatever.
[GLOW=orangered]Note that nowhere is there a refutation of the validity of the analogy.[/GLOW]
Upvote
0
Wrong. The analogy has been used many times in the past and is generally referred to as "Paley's Watch" in honor of Sir William Paley, who first proposed it. In fact it has been refuted many times.
The key problem with Paley's analogy is that it is imperfect. While it is true that watches and living organisms are both complex, there are also many differences. Key among them is that living things reproduce. Watches don't.
Ask yourself how your conclusions might be different if we found a Cray computer on the beach and then noticed it was in the process of giving birth to a baby Cray computer.
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
Another thing I would like to point out about the analogy is that it is a better analogy for non-scientific knowledge than for scientific knowledge. Someone who had never seen a watch/computer/whatever might see one on the beach. Instead of making assumptions on the basis of superficial appearance and their own current limited understanding, they could take the scientific approach and look for mechanisms that could explain the presence of the computer. The mechanism they would find in the case of the computer would be human ingenuity.
In the case of a furry animal, the mechanism they would find was sexual reproduction of already-existing living organisms.
In the case of a furry animal, the mechanism they would find was sexual reproduction of already-existing living organisms.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
