Is there Proof for Creationism?

Originally posted by ikester7579
And if I answered, it would be down played in demeaning tones is usually the norm. looking to learn? I see questions but the answers you don't won't so why ask? Admit it, there's no answer that could be given here on creation that you would take as fact. You would not believe it's source or it would be out dated. Right?

Click to expand...

 

Is that ever the truth. Well said, Ikester.

Originally posted by tacoman528
 

Is that ever the truth. Well said, Ikester.

Click to expand...

Tacoman,

Are you ever going to respond to that email I sent you about a month ago?

Do you guys think I have to debate everyone of you? I got half a dozen people demanding me for answers to their question's besides their comment's I'd love to answer to! I almost need a whole day off from work in order do this, I love this forum! You guy's are such pals!

Arikay you can delete your age from your personal listing but I'll still remember. LOL, Did I suddenly give you a complex?

 

RufusAtticus here's a short but incomplete list of creation scientists that don't work for the ICR. These are creationists scientists that repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data, and no, they don't quote scripture.This is actually a small sample of a small sample of people in just the Biology Scientists list I viewed.

Todd C Wood Ph.D. Biochemistry

Bert Thompson Ph.D. Biochemistry/Geneomics

Andre Eggen Ph.D. Animal Molecular Genetics

John K G Kramer Ph.D. Biochemistry

Sharon K Bullock Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Gregory J Brewer Ph.D. Biology

Arthur J Jones Ph.D. Biology

Lyubka P Tantchera Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology

Alan Gillen Ed.D. Science and Education

Donna O'Daniel M.A. Biological Sciences

Kelly Hollowell J.D. Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology

Glen W Wolfrom Ph.D. Animal Husbandry

Mark H Armitage M.S. Biology

Randy Guliuzza M.D. 

I'm not going to list all of the others I was going to. This list should be enough for you besides if I was going to list all the others I'd have to list hundreds of names and for what? Just to listen to you all wine about some minor point that makes you think discredits them. It all goes to show that evolutionists prove to themselves that evolution is credable not through actual evidence but through "argumentum ad hominum" (to argue the man) In effect, those wanting to protect the party line argue against the messenger rather than the message. It ignores weather the issue is true or false and diverts attention from using logic on the evidence, the same evidence that is used by both sides.

 

Originally posted by nephilimiyr
These are creationists scientists that repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data, and no, they don't quote scripture.

Click to expand...

You are going to have to do more than cite names. You are going to have to give a sample of the "evidence" that they use, if you want to support that they do use evidence. The fact that you describe them as repudiating "molecules-to-man evolution," argues against your list, since there is no such thing as "molecules-to-man evolution." Find me a biological source that says otherwise.

In effect, those wanting to protect the party line argue against the messenger rather than the message. It ignores weather the issue is true or false and diverts attention from using logic on the evidence, the same evidence that is used by both sides.

Click to expand...

What message? You haven't even provided any evidence.

You are going to have to do more than cite names. You are going to have to give a sample of the "evidence" that they use, if you want to support that they do use evidence. The fact that you describe them as repudiating "molecules-to-man evolution," argues against your list, since there is no such thing as "molecules-to-man evolution." Find me a biological source that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

I don't have to do anything Rufus. Besides all you asked for was a list of names of creation scientists that don't use their religious beliefs to prove their findings.  

Your just being arguementative Rufus, well alright than. these creation scientists don't accept or support the findings that evolutionist scientists say is evidence for evolution. I'm not admitting that what I said was wrong but just rephrasing it so you understand it better.

Why is it that I could come up with this list rather easily? If you want to know what research they've done that made them form the opinions they have on evolution and creation I suggest you do a search yourself, it's wasn't all that hard to find useing the web.

Perhaps if I have time latter I will take acouple of these people and show you what you want but until then there's the list you were asking for.

 

What message? You haven't even provided any evidence.

Click to expand...

Your taking me out of context Rufus, I was talking about argumentum ad hominum and that being used on creationist scientist, not me. Again the same evidence that you say supports evolution is the same evidence they say supports them.

Neph:

You say these scientists have done research that disproves or discredits evolution, or that supports special creation, and that doesn't rely on scripture. If you actually know this to be the case, then you should be aware of some of the research they have done & be able to tell us at least the names of their papers (or books or articles - whatever) where they do this.

Just because they use science to support research in their field, doesn't mean that they are also using it to arrive at their creationist conclusions. For you to say they have arrived at creationism using evidence from nature instead of scripture, you must know what evidence they are using to arrive at that conclusion. If you don't know what they do base their theories on, it is pretty well impossible for you to know that their theories do not rely on scripture.

If we look at Arikay's question to start out this thread "Is there factual proof of creationism?" I will admitt to saying no to this BUT I believe in the model of creation because of the evidence just as strongly as you all believe strongly in the theory of evolution because of it's evidence. But just like Rufus so intelligently put it that even science isn't about proof but evidence and disproof. I understand how many people would view the evidence and form an opinion on believing evolution as a model but from what I've been taught and from what I know I can't make the same assumptions and or determinations you have.

So the way I see it is we're all in the same boat.  We're all believing in something because of what the evidence tells us. The reason why I questioned Rufus on his prejudice on creationism is that we creationist, if I can group myself with them, take the same evidence that he says is the reason for him believing in evolution and turn it around on him. We don't come to the same hypothesis and he claims it's because of our belief in God. Well a belief in God is different than a belief in creation because the model of creation isn't pointing a finger at who but what, reguardless of who's makeing the point or showing the evidence.

Originally posted by ikester7579
And if I answered, it would be down played in demeaning tones is usually the norm. looking to learn? I see questions but the answers you don't won't so why ask? Admit it, there's no answer that could be given here on creation that you would take as fact. You would not believe it's source or it would be out dated. Right?

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. If a creationist were to make a bold statement like "the sky is blue" it would be immediately trashed. There are mainstream scientists that believe in creation, however if they state their views on this board or try to write their findings in a science journal they won't get anywhere.

 

 

 

So the way I see it is we're all in the same boat. We're all believing in something because of what the evidence tells us. The reason why I questioned Rufus on his prejudice on creationism is that we creationist, if I can group myself with them, take the same evidence that he says is the reason for him believing in evolution and turn it around on him.

Click to expand...

You take (some of the) evidence that evolution tells us that we should expect to find, and "turn it around" to show that it could be compatible with a creationist model.

That isn't how science works. Any evidence could be compatible with almost any model. Science works by looking specifically for what we should expect to find, and looking specifically for what we should expect never to find if a given theory is true. If this is done for a theory, as it has been done for evolution, and if we find lots of what we should expect to find, and none of what we should expect never to find, then we have good evidence for the theory. That's what has been done for the last 150 years in evolution.

No creation model tells us what we should expect to find. More importantly, no creation model tells us what we should never expect to find. Without that, one cannot confirm a creation model by the evidence. Having a real look at the evidence (as I suggested to you before), will show you that much of the evidence is not even compatible with any current "creation model".

Creationism starts with the answer, then looks for evidence that supports that answer. When it finds evidence that supports a different answer, it re-interprets that evidence, or ignores it.

Jerry

You take (some of the) evidence that evolution tells us that we <I>should expect to find</I>, and "turn it around" to show that it <I>could be compatible</I> with a creationist model.

That isn't how science works. Any evidence <I>could be compatible</I> with almost <I>any</I> model. Science works by looking specifically for what we <I>should expect to find</I>, and looking specifically for what we <I>should expect never to find</I> if a given theory is true. If this is done for a theory, as it has been done for evolution, and if we find lots of what we should expect to find, and none of what we should expect never to find, then we have good evidence for the theory. That's what has been done for the last 150 years in evolution.

No creation model tells us what we <I>should expect to find</I>. More importantly, no creation model tells us what we <I>should never expect to find</I>. Without that, one cannot confirm a creation model by the evidence. Having a real look at the evidence (as I suggested to you before), will show you that much of the evidence is not even compatible with any current "creation model".

Creationism starts with the answer, then looks for evidence that supports that answer. When it finds evidence that supports a different answer, it re-interprets that evidence, or ignores it.

Click to expand...

First you say no creation model tells us what we should expect to find and or***what we should never&nbsp;expect to find***but then you critisize creationists for starting with an answer then looking for evidence??? I suggest to you the creationist scientists are useing the same methods&nbsp;the evolution scientists are useing. Weather you want to believe it or not the evolution scientists use evolution as a starting point of their experiments. They're out there trying to prove evolution without a doubt just as much as any creationist scientist is out there trying to prove the model of creation

First you say no creation model tells us what we should expect to find and or***what we should never expect to find***but then you critisize creationists for starting with an answer then looking for evidence???

Click to expand...

Yes, I did first criticize creationism for not presenting a model that tells us what evidence we should expect to find, and what should not be there. Then I summed up that creationism starts with the answer then looks (only) for evidence that supports that answer, ignoring or "explaining away" anything that points in another direction.

Now, can you tell me how to test a theory when that theory tells us nothing at all about what we should find in nature if it was true, and nothing about what we should not find if it was&nbsp; true?

P.S., did you review the genetic evidence I posted in the thread for Rize? I think I gave you a link to it in a previous post. If not, let me know &amp; I'll give it to you again. Maybe a specific discussion of the evidence will help clear up these "generalities" that we are stumbling over.

Then I summed up that creationism <I>starts with the answer</I> then looks (only) for evidence that supports that answer, ignoring or "explaining away" anything that points in another direction.&nbsp;

Click to expand...

That, my friend, is mearly an observation on your part and reguardless of who agree's with you is nothing but an assumption.

I contend that because these creationist scientists don't come up with the same conclusions you do after evaluating the evidence&nbsp; you&nbsp; attack them with accusation of misconduct&nbsp;and bias. The evolutionist scientist never get's this condemnation from you. When they say more evidence is found for evolution you fall right in with it. &nbsp;\

No you didn't provide me with any links for anything. Rufus gave me a link to view but I HAVE YET TO VISIT IT. But go ahead and link it for me. I know I wont get to it today but I have accouple of days off latter in the week where I will be able to read both.

Thank you!

Then you would maybe like to defend your position by pointing out some of the positive predictions of creationism and where they are confirmed? I have already pointed out some of the poistive predictions of evolution and where they are uniquely confirmed, and pointed out evidence which would falsify evolution if it were to be found.

Could you do the same for creationism?

Neph,

You can't go to ICR's webpage and post only the names of the "creationists biologists" who aren't members of ICR and think you have shown that their belief in creationism stems from evidence and not scripture. In fact if you actually looked into these people you'd see that they do in fact use scripture primarily to justify their creationism.

Todd C Wood works at Bryan College, and had to signthis statement of belief.

Bert Thompson is executive director of Apologetics Press, which has this statement of belief. You just have to read through the site to see that he does use scriptural evidence.

Andre Eggen began the French Creationist organization, Au Commencement, which uses scripture a lot to justify creationism.

John K G Kramer has a chapter in In Six Days, and it would be easy to verify if he mentions scripture in it. However, the evidence he offer inthis quote is nothing but creationist misconceptions that have been debunked many many many years.

Sharon K Bullock - Not enough information available.

Gregory J Brewer wrote ICR Impact #341. Notice that the first thing in the article is a Bible verse. That doesn't jive with your contention that he doesn't use scripture does it?

You get the idea. So far you haven't had much success in identifying creationists who don't use scripture to justify their beliefs. Many be you should try a little harder then simply copying names from ICR's website.

Neph,

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question: "What is the one piece of evidence/argument that you find most compelling against evolution and for special creation?"

Very well done Rufus, I'm impressed.

Although my search for what you asked for will remain on going I still contend that because these people hold to a faith in a God of creation and belong to orginizations that profess such a faith you prejudice yourself against them. Your useing argumentum ad hominum. Your diverting attention from the arguments they put forward as evidence supporting their scientific model and debaseing the person because of his or her beliefs.

So what if the guy quotes scripture before he outlines his hypothesis? He neither proves or disproves anything by doing it but shows that he holds dear to a faith but his argument is none the less valid.&nbsp;

I still contend that because these people hold to a faith in a God of creation and belong to orginizations that profess such a faith you prejudice yourself against them.

Click to expand...

Ask Rufus what he thinks about Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God. Ken Miller holds to a faith in a God of creation, and belongs to the Catholic church, yet I don't think you will get much criticism against him from Rufus or any other pro-evolutionist on this forum. The same could be said for Glenn Morton, member of the APA (a Christian organisation of scientists), Keith Miller, member of same, and many, many others.

In short, I don't think your theory holds water.

Michael J Behe Ph.D. Biochemistry

While Behe isn't a creationist he doesn't accept the evidence supporting evolution

http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm