5 Questions for Creationists

Tempus Fugit

Member
Nov 17, 2013
69
0
✟15,179.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Um, I would appreciate any feedback. And I've posted these questions on another board, in case if anyone accuses plagiarism. Thanks.

1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don’t we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn’t seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?


2. I’d asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I’m sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.

Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to “god works in mysterious ways”, or rather “occam’s razor can go [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself.”


3. Why don’t Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You’d think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?


4. Where are Creationism’s testable predictions? It isn’t falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.


5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam’s rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
 

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Um, I would appreciate any feedback. And I've posted these questions on another board, in case if anyone accuses plagiarism. Thanks.

1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don’t we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus? We can see with hominid fossils that they come from different eras, and it just happens that as the dates approach the present, they become more and more similar to us. It seems quite mightily convenient for Evolutionary Theory that we find a similar trend throughout every fossil hierarchy. It doesn’t seem to fit with the Creationist stance that God created the animals at around the same time – why would they happen to exist in distinct eras with clear progressions from one set of fossils to the next?

I would say this is more clearly meant to be a question to those that are YEC. The Creation narrative in my opinion, (which can disagree with many other Creationists) is that the Bible clearly states that the kinds mentioned in the six days of Creation come after their kinds which to me means there were the same kinds that came before. So, if the creation days were a day unlike our current time frame (which would be the case due to the sun and moon not being formed on the first day) those days could hold unknown "time" frames.


2. I’d asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs. More specifically, why it happens that these vestigial organs happen to have had a purpose in earlier species Evolution predicts were ancestors. Why would a Creator give animals vestigial organs in such a manner that so conveniently lines up with Evolutionary theory? Is this Creator actively deceiving us? And even in organs that do serve a purpose, I’m sure any first year medical student could list numerous organs just in the human body that could be made orders of magnitude more efficient.
This has two different aspects to it. Vestigial organs are shrinking as we learn more and more about how our bodies and the organs work. What used to be considered vestigial has been shown to be used.

The other element is how this "lines up with evolutionary theory". ToE is the theory that life evolves. We are looking back in time and seeing how God created. WE call this ToE. Evolution happens and is happening today. However, some assumption of ToE are made that are not evident. For one, that the supernatural is not needed to explain it. That is an assumption that is not evident. There are more. So evolution is not an opposing view of Creationism. It is the philosophy of ToE that sometimes is opposing.

Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to “god works in mysterious ways”, or rather “occam’s razor can go [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself.”
If evolution is a slow and blind process there are elements that do not fit with that prediction. Evolution as a process and as defined is true. It allows for adaptations for the kinds that God created.

3. Why don’t Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids? You’d think this would be a pretty major point, that there were once other intelligent beings, presumably also with souls. What happened to them?
It does in my opinion (which others may not agree) is that Cain married outside of the spiritual line. Neanderthals and other sentient hominids are not spiritual images of God and are not of Adam's line.


4. Where are Creationism’s testable predictions? It isn’t falsifiable – it is based on no observations and is not applicable to any other field. Evolutionary Theory can be used to explain numerous phenomena in biology, biochemistry, psychology, neuroscience and animal science, while creationism is entirely self contained in that it makes no predictions and no observations.
Evolution is not opposing Creation. Evolution is the adaptation of kinds that God created. EVolution has made many predictions that have been proven false and adapted to fit new information, it only appears that it is what is predicted due to the actual truth that lies behind the theory. Creation makes predictions and can lead to many observations.

5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology? How do you know God created Eve out of Adam’s rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
There is evidence of plant life on the earliest earth. Precambrian in fact.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Um, I would appreciate any feedback.
And you talk like this?

Since I'm used to lowering my standards to address good questions that are accompanied with venting & ridicule (or worse), I suppose I can do it again.
And I've posted these questions on another board, in case if anyone accuses plagiarism.
I'm afraid to look. They may not electronically scramble certain words.
Okay.
1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don’t we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as Australopithecus?
You do -- you just don't know it.

These "Australopithecii" are really Homo sapiens that God judged with what He calls a "wonderful" disease; a bone-altering disease of some kind.

King David died of such a disease (Psalm 38), and I would venture to say that if graverobbers (scientists) dug up his remains today, he would be mistaken for either Neanderthal or Cro-magnon.
2. I’d asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs.
I don't know; but here's a guess:

In Genesis 6, fallen angels were messing with DNA big-time, and God said all flesh (Noah's line excepted) was corrupted.

I wouldn't be surprised if we found humans with dorsal fins.
But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to “god works in mysterious ways”, or rather “occam’s razor can go [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself.”
You should write childrens' books.
3. Why don’t Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids?
Because Biblical creation stories should end at Genesis 1:31 -- period.

Anything after that has nothing to do with the creation week; a mistake I think even seasoned Bible debaters make.

When debating creationism, one should never stray outside of Genesis 1, or the conversation will self-destruct.
4. Where are Creationism’s testable predictions?
Nowhere.

God didn't use science or nature to perform His acts of creation.

They are a series of miracles.
How do you know God created Eve out of Adam’s rib, or that he created the plants before the stars? Where does any of this come from?
Genesis 1.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Um, I would appreciate any feedback. And I've posted these questions on another board, in case if anyone accuses plagiarism. Thanks.

1. If God created humans and animals within a decently small timespan, why don’t we ever find homo sapiens fossils from the same era as ...

Science has perfected the art of creating fictions retelling the past with about the same accuracy as predicting the future. Not well.


2. I’d asked earlier how creationists explain vestigial organs.

The list 100's of vestigial organs is nearly gone. Those will drop off as well as the lack of understanding
dissolves. If one of those is a pet of yours, please reveal your favorite. I've covered nipples, body hair,
tailbones, appendix, and a couple others with references from peer reviewed literature.

3. Why don’t Biblical creation stories mention Neanderthals and other sentient hominids?

There are a number of odd "people" in the scriptures. Very odd people. Both of your terms are very modern as well as your classification system. If those days a "big lug" was a category.


4. Where are Creationism’s testable predictions?

Assuming that there is a supernatural Creator who created the cosmos, the odds are good that natural processes were not used. Using natural processes is the prerequisite for scientific examination because any claims must be duplicatable by a skeptical third party.


5. Building off of the last question, if, as with most creationists, your primary justification is some variant of the first cause argument, how do you extrapolate this to anything specific in your mythology?

The first cause argument is the scientific argument for a supernatural Creator. The Christian religion is based entirely on Faith in the Creator. There is no belief without Faith. Human reasoning is flawed, as the scriptures explain.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Um, I would appreciate any feedback. And I've posted these questions on another board, in case if anyone accuses plagiarism. Thanks.

You may ask 15 questions, or you may simply ask one question to summarize all your points. What does the fossil record mean to creationism?

First, take off the box of time in your fossil sequence. Then things will become much easier to explain. Time, is the factor given by a different system of study and does not belong to your argument about fossils.

So, what is the problem when God created all life forms in sequence?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
This has two different aspects to it. Vestigial organs are shrinking as we learn more and more about how our bodies and the organs work. What used to be considered vestigial has been shown to be used.

No, they are still vestigial. Just because the appendix still has a function does not mean it is not a vestigial organ. A vestigial organ is one that no longer had its original purpose. In fact this is one of the possible pathways for the development of new organs.
The other element is how this "lines up with evolutionary theory". ToE is the theory that life evolves. We are looking back in time and seeing how God created. WE call this ToE. Evolution happens and is happening today. However, some assumption of ToE are made that are not evident. For one, that the supernatural is not needed to explain it. That is an assumption that is not evident. There are more. So evolution is not an opposing view of Creationism. It is the philosophy of ToE that sometimes is opposing.

In science you never assume that god is needed. Do you assume that god is needed to start a chemical reaction? The fall of a rock? The formation of ice crystals? Hopefully you said no. What makes evolution a special case/

If evolution is a slow and blind process there are elements that do not fit with that prediction. Evolution as a process and as defined is true. It allows for adaptations for the kinds that God created.

Who said evolution is blind? That seems like the sort of straw man argument that creationists make. There is still no evidence that God created anything. And you need to define "kinds". It is not valid to use an undefined term and no creationist has a working definition of "kind" that has not been shown to be wrong by evolution.

It does in my opinion (which others may not agree) is that Cain married outside of the spiritual line. Neanderthals and other sentient hominids are not spiritual images of God and are not of Adam's line.

A belief that is not supported by either the Bible or by evidence.



Evolution is not opposing Creation. Evolution is the adaptation of kinds that God created. EVolution has made many predictions that have been proven false and adapted to fit new information, it only appears that it is what is predicted due to the actual truth that lies behind the theory. Creation makes predictions and can lead to many observations.

Really? Then why are there no predictions that are not inane nonsense by creationists?

There is evidence of plant life on the earliest earth. Precambrian in fact.


I don't think so. Let me check. Nope.

What are you calling "plant life"?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What does the fossil record mean to creationism?

There is a current study of the contents of stomachs and the pollen found at the sites of bones. Now imagine a person who studies pollen grains watching a hired local person digging for bones as he tosses shovels of dirt on a pile till he finds a bone. That's what level we are at today.

A: We are like gorillas tossing shovels of dirt with a back hoe. Scientists of the near future will study layers of molecules when they lay out the fossil record. Likely there will be surprises regarding the interpretation of the results.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There is a current study of the contents of stomachs and the pollen found at the sites of bones. Now imagine a person who studies pollen grains watching a hired local person digging for bones as he tosses shovels of dirt on a pile till he finds a bone. That's what level we are at today.

A: We are like gorillas tossing shovels of dirt. Scientists of the future will study layers of molecules when they lay out the fossil record.

Perhaps. And it will still support only the theory of evolution, just as it does today.
 
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

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, they are still vestigial. Just because the appendix still has a function does not mean it is not a vestigial organ. A vestigial organ is one that no longer had its original purpose. In fact this is one of the possible pathways for the development of new organs.

I am curious, what evidence do you have for the original purpose?


In science you never assume that god is needed. Do you assume that god is needed to start a chemical reaction? The fall of a rock? The formation of ice crystals? Hopefully you said no. What makes evolution a special case/

Then why do naturalists claim no supernatural being was needed. I see that claim all the time.



Who said evolution is blind?

The thread starter. He said: Indeed, many of our physical and mental traits seem uniquely adapted for survival in a hunter gatherer society, which makes absolutely no sense if you prescribe to Genesis, or any creator that would recognize we would eventually become agricultural and industrial. Evolution not only explains but expects such imperfections, as natural selection is a slow, blind process, the nonrandom selection of random mutations. But creationist theory has to perform mental gymnastics that reduce to “god works in mysterious ways”, or rather “occam’s razor can go [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself.” Emphasis mine.

That seems like the sort of straw man argument that creationists make.
Obviously not.

There is still no evidence that God created anything. And you need to define "kinds". It is not valid to use an undefined term and no creationist has a working definition of "kind" that has not been shown to be wrong by evolution.

Really? Science doesn't even know how to define species. Why should we be held to a different standard.



A belief that is not supported by either the Bible or by evidence.

I explained it within scripture.


Really? Then why are there no predictions that are not inane nonsense by creationists?

Because you believe that everything that creationist claim is nonsense.


I don't think so. Let me check. Nope.

Sorry you are wrong.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130103

What are you calling "plant life"
 
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

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you confusing technology and inventions with historical science again?

Are you confusing 'historical science' with a concept that exists anywhere outside the imaginary playground of creationism again?
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟21,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Are you confusing 'historical science' with a concept that exists anywhere outside the imaginary playground of creationism again?

Not unless we have to dig up fossils and generate assumptions about similarities to build a house or an airplane.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There is a current study of the contents of stomachs and the pollen found at the sites of bones. Now imagine a person who studies pollen grains watching a hired local person digging for bones as he tosses shovels of dirt on a pile till he finds a bone. That's what level we are at today.

A: We are like gorillas tossing shovels of dirt with a back hoe. Scientists of the near future will study layers of molecules when they lay out the fossil record. Likely there will be surprises regarding the interpretation of the results.

Similar studies have happened now. People study DNA to explore the origin of human being. What do they know now? Can they bridge the gap between monkey and human? Or is the gap becoming more and more clear?

If they can not be successful in using the most recent samples, I do not hold much hope when people are going toward any fossil record.
 
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

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If evolution is a slow and blind process there are elements that do not fit with that prediction.
It's not necessarily slow. Blind, to my knowledge, yes.

Evolution is not opposing Creation. Evolution is the adaptation of kinds that God created. EVolution has made many predictions that have been proven false and adapted to fit new information, it only appears that it is what is predicted due to the actual truth that lies behind the theory.
Wait a sec, I think we need to agree on what we mean by "evolution" here. On the one hand, evolution is simply descent with modification. You've got heritable variation, and that variation changes from generation to generation due to random sampling effects and selection. So far, so good.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory includes the idea of common descent. This is not a necessity for the basic process of evolution to work - it's part of the evolutionary explanation for biodiversity. So we have to distinguish the two concepts.

It's also important to note that evolutionary theory as originally formulated did not postulate universal common descent. I don't think that, at the time, there was enough evidence to do so. No comparative genetics, very little knowledge of biochemistry, no Precambrian fossil record, what have you. Likewise, if life has more than one ultimate ancestor, that does nothing to rule out the processes of evolution or the idea of common descent - it's simply irrelevant to the former (many if not most of which have been directly observed) and it merely restricts the latter.

With that in mind, I'd like to know which predictions you think were proven false.

Creation makes predictions and can lead to many observations.
I'd also like to know which predictions these are. Mind you, I want predictions that can be distinguished from evolutionary ones. I.e. don't come with things like the common design common designer argument - common ancestry also predicts commonalities of design.

There is evidence of plant life on the earliest earth. Precambrian in fact.
As a person interested in the fossil record, I was very curious about this...

So. First, though probably least important: Retallack represents a fringe opinion. Very few palaeontologists argue that fossil-bearing Ediacaran deposits are terrestrial. The general consensus is that they are mostly marine; some of them represent shallow seafloors covered by microbial mats, some of them were buried by volcanic ash, while some of the later ones (in the Nama Group in particular) contain microbial reefs.

Second, lichens aren't necessarily "plant life". The photosynthetic part of the symbiosis is often not a plant but a cyanobacterium (and then, single-celled algae are only plants in the broaders sense). To top that, Genesis doesn't simply mention "plant life". I don't know about the original Hebrew, but English translations specifically list things like grass and fruit-bearing trees. Angiosperms do not appear in the fossil record until the Mesozoic.

Third, the Ediacaran period is not "the earliest earth" by any stretch. Ediacaran fossils start around 580 million years ago, in the latest Precambrian. They were preceded by four billion years of earth history, the majority of which didn't leave us any fossils more complex than bacteria. The earliest multicellular algae are things like Bangiomorpha, from under 1.5 billion years ago. And again, these were red algae living in water and not grass and fruit-bearing trees on dry land. AFAIK, the earliest evidence of land plants is some Ordovician spores that certainly didn't belong to fruit-bearing trees.

Really? Science doesn't even know how to define species. Why should we be held to a different standard.
It's pretty simple. If you (not you specifically) insist that evolution only happens within a kind, I think you ought to know where kinds end. After all, presumably you have some sort of evidence for your claim, and that evidence should be the observation that evolution doesn't proceed beyond a certain level of divergence.

Theoretically, a kind always means the same thing. It's the unit of God's creation and the limit of evolution.

Species doesn't always mean the same thing, and we don't believe there is some sort of discrete unchangeable entity behind the definitions. It makes a lot of sense to talk about biological species when you're discussing how populations of sexually reproducing organisms diverge from each other. It makes very little sense to apply the same concept to asexuals and/or promiscuous gene swappers.

(FWIW, I'm quite happy to be explicit about which species definition I mean. Usually, it'll be the biological species, because that's the context where speciation is most often discussed by evolutionary biologists. Often, species definitions are actually irrelevant. When discussing how humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it doesn't really matter whether we interpret "humans" as a biological species or a morphospecies or an ecological species or a genotypic cluster; it's the traits, their genetic basis and the evolutionary forces acting on them that matter. Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure that we could find examples of new species observed to form under most currently used species definitions.)
 
Upvote 0