A Challenge For Creationists

[No gods]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Ok, here's my challenge:

This post is the product of Divine inspiration. Last night I was visited by the Holy Spirit, and He explained the whole thing to me. Therefore, everything I am about to write is, by definition, the infalliable Word of God.

God did create the universe. And while God does have an extraordinary eye for detail, He never was a big fan of micromanagement. It takes a lot of grunt work to keep the universe on track, and frankly, God has more important things to worry about. Fate, destiny, the Divine plan, stuff like that.

To handle the minor details of existence, God relies on his little-known partner, Iggy the Magic Elf. Iggy is omnipresent and omniscient, but not quite omnipotent. However, it is only through his diligent work that the laws of nature (physics, gravity, mathematics) are enforced.

In the Divine plan, evolution is a minor detail. Iggy saw God's work in the beginning and humbly suggested that he could improve on it (very humbly. Remember what happened to the last guy who thought he could do better than God?).God found this amusing and decided to let Iggy work on it for a few million years. So you see, creation and evolution are both true, and we have Iggy to thank for it.
Praise Iggy.

This post is the product of Divine inspiration. Just this morning, I was visited by the Holy Spirit, and He explained the whole thing to me. Therefore, everything I am about to write is, by definition, the infalliable Word of God.

God created the universe. And while God does have an penchant for detail, He never was a fanatic of micromanagement. It takes a lot of grunt work to keep the universe on track, and frankly, God has more pressing things to worry about. freewill, predestination, the Divine plan, stuff like that.

To handle the minor details of existence, God relies on his little-known partner, Iggy the Magic Elf. Iggy is omnipresent and omniscient, but not quite omnipotent. However, it is only through his knowledge that the laws of nature (physics, gravity, mathematics) are enforced.

In the Divine plan, evolution is a minor detail. Iggy saw God's work in the beginning and humbly showed God a way that he could improve on it. Though God found Iggy's presumtion a little annoying, he also found it amusing and decided bestow upon Iggy the right and power to work on it for a few million years.

Now, other than a few minor words, these divine writings are nearly the same. How can that be unless they are both truly divinely inspired writings? These writings attest to the truth of the other for it would not be possible for these writings to be similar if they weren't both inspired. And we can see that neither was a copy of the other because they aren't exactly the same!

Praise Iggy the Magic Elf.

 

[aaron]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
however the chances of the sand landing in other patterns is just as unlikely. it did not require an intelligent placement or forcing to put grain number 1, 493856, and 95846384 at the top of the pile.

Yes, you are correct it didn't take an intelligent being to place them in that order. BUT, again I tell you that those grains of sand do not work together to make something that lives. They are DEAD, always were DEAD, never were ALIVE, AND do not make up something that is ALIVE. So you see what you are talking about is TOTALLY different than a living organism. I would like to see you take a bunch of atoms, toss them around a bit and let them fall and I want to see something that moves and lives.

 

[Orihalcon]

a living organism is just a few trillion cells, each quite similar to each other. each cell is a few billion molecules large. bacteria are smaller than human cells. they were a chance occurence, just like the arrangement of the sand.

the sand i was talking about did not refer to SAND being alive or anything, it was a demonstration of probability and control.

 

[ocean]

Originally posted by aaron
Yes, you are correct it didn't take an intelligent being to place them in that order. BUT, again I tell you that those grains of sand do not work together to make something that lives. They are DEAD, always were DEAD, never were ALIVE, AND do not make up something that is ALIVE. So you see what you are talking about is TOTALLY different than a living organism. I would like to see you take a bunch of atoms, toss them around a bit and let them fall and I want to see something that moves and lives.

Actually, grains of sand aren't "dead", they are "non-living". In order for something to be dead, it had to be alive at one time.

 

[aaron]

sorry for that mis wording. That is what I meant.

 

[Defending Our Lord]

Evolution confuses me...because;

If the Earth is Millions + yrs old;
where are all the bones from past creatures.

Second if evolution is how things happen;
Where are the half breeds?

Third how could the big bang just happen...something had to start it.

I offer this as evidence for Creation;

"Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters

I was an evolutionist converted to the Lord. It makes more sense to me.

 

[ocean]

Originally posted by Defending Our Lord
Evolution confuses me...because;

If the Earth is Millions + yrs old;
where are all the bones from past creatures.

Second if evolution is how things happen;
Where are the half breeds?

Third how could the big bang just happen...something had to start it.

I offer this as evidence for Creation;

"Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters

I was an evolutionist converted to the Lord. It makes more sense to me.

You can't be serious.

There are plenty of fossils from past creatures, there are no "half-breeds", that is a common misconception of evolution, evolution does not deal with the big bang, that is cosmology, evolution is biology.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Morat]

Evolution confuses me...because;

If the Earth is Millions + yrs old;
where are all the bones from past creatures.

In the ground. There is an actual job you can have, where you dig them up and study them. Mind you, bones are pretty biodegradable, but a tiny fraction get preserved.

Walk through the woods sometimes. How many deer skeletons do you see, even if the woods are crawling with deer?

Second if evolution is how things happen;
Where are the half breeds?

What half breeds? You mean transitionals? All around us. Every species you see is transitional, or at least might be.

Third how could the big bang just happen...something had to start it.

That's not evolution. And it's a non sequitor.

I offer this as evidence for Creation;

"Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters

Nice quote. Too bad it's bogus. First off, Darwin never wrote a book called "My Life and Letters". The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, and More Letters of
Charles Darwin(two volumes each) were published in 1887 and 1902
respectively. (Charles Darwin died in 1882.) They were assembled
by his son Francis and A. C. Seward. You can get them online (Project Gutenburg) and it's so easy to word search. The first half of your quote "Not one change..." I can't find anywhere. The second half is quoted in Volume Two. The relevant section is reproduced below:

P.S.--In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at
present be grounded entirely on general considerations.
(1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for
existence; and the certain geological fact that species do
somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under
domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from
this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a
host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove
that no one species has changed [i.e. We cannot prove that
a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the
supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork
of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have
changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me
hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail
than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in
vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why
one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant
more pointed leaves than another plant.

Later on, he states:

I am actually weary of telling people that I do not pretend
to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into
another, but that I believe that this view in the main is
correct, because so many phenomena can be thus grouped
together and explained.

So, nice bogus quote. The first half of it is manufactured, the second half is ripped from the context where Darwin mentiones he's never seen a speciation event, but deduced it from the explanatory power of the theory.

All of which is moot, as speciation events have been observed many times over the last 150 years.

I was an evolutionist converted to the Lord. It makes more sense to me.

I doubt it. If you were, you were a horribly uneducated one.

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by Defending Our Lord
If the Earth is Millions + yrs old;
where are all the bones from past creatures.

it's called decomposition

Second if evolution is how things happen;
Where are the half breeds?

they die out.  not all species survive.

Third how could the big bang just happen...something had to start it.

several theories going for this i think, one of them being the collapse of a previous universe.

 

[OldBadfish]

Carl Sagan, in his book "Cosmos", candidly acknowledged that "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer".


Do you evolutionists believe that an intelligent designer had any hand in creation matters? Or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Badfish
Carl Sagan, in his book "Cosmos", candidly acknowledged that "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer".


Do you evolutionists believe that an intelligent designer had any hand in creation matters? Or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance?

I believe God designed the Universe and acted in such a way that would cause intelligent beings to come into existence. However, I am fairly agnostic on which events occured because of divine intervention and which were independent of direct divine influence. Since all of the events in the history of humanity's creation are buried deep in the murky past, knowledge about these events is difficult at best, impossible at worst.

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by Badfish
Do you evolutionists believe that an intelligent designer had any hand in creation matters? Or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance?

there is always the chance that there is something that helped guide evolution.  say, an alien race that somehow, through genetic engineering or something, created man in their image.  but i think the chances of that happening are pretty low, and there's no evidence of it so far.

as for an intelligent designer to actually create everything on earth by his plan, and direct all of them to their present form, i don't believe that happened.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Badfish
Do you evolutionists believe that an intelligent designer had any hand in creation matters? Or is it your belief that from the very start the development of life was strictly a matter of chance?

I believe it's possible life could have arisen from natural means (however, to call this pure "chance" is misleading).

At the same time, I also don't rule out a potential designer. But I could care less for who or what the designer is. I'd rather know how the designer could have affected the process, and to what extent.

This is the main problem I have with the whole ID argument. So much effort is spent on proving life (or components of life) could not have arisen naturally, yet I've to see any explanation how a designer would, in fact, take the place of naturalism.

 

[Morat]

Carl Sagan, in his book "Cosmos", candidly acknowledged that "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer".

BUWAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, I love the easy ones:

"The fossil evidence could be consistant with the idea of a Great Designer;
perhaps some species are destroyed when the designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitly made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistant with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperment)"

- "Cosmos"; Sagan; Wings Books, New York, 1995, 1980

All in all, not a bad misquote. Only replaced a ";" with a ".", but, of course, utterly different in context.

 

[Defending Our Lord]

Originally posted by ocean
Why do creationists always ask for evidence of evolution but provide no evidence for creation? There is plenty of evidence for evolution, but none for creation (outside of the Bible).

I have a challenge for creationists. Give me ONE piece of CREDIBLE evidence (no Kent Hovind stuff) for creationism.

Physicist Thomas Barnes has done careful research in the study of the magnetic field, and since the magnetism was first measured in 1835, it has been decaying gradually. Now if you had any ideas about lowering your idea a few million years, this will prove even that wrong. Following the second law of thermodynamics, the field is leading to a state of disorder, as is everything else in the world, including animals, and humanity. This is not evolutionary. However, Dr. Barnes made the statement that life could not have been possible at anymore than 10,000 years ago without the magnetic field, yet we were to have been already sophisticated humans (Almost) by then?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Defending Our Lord
Physicist Thomas Barnes has done careful research in the study of the magnetic field, and since the magnetism was first measured in 1835, it has been decaying gradually. Now if you had any ideas about lowering your idea a few million years, this will prove even that wrong. Following the second law of thermodynamics, the field is leading to a state of disorder, as is everything else in the world, including animals, and humanity. This is not evolutionary. However, Dr. Barnes made the statement that life could not have been possible at anymore than 10,000 years ago without the magnetic field, yet we were to have been already sophisticated humans (Almost) by then?

Mechanical Bliss, already posted on the other thread about this.

Defending Our Lord:


Physicist Thomas Barnes has done careful research in the study of the magnetic field, and since the magnetism was first measured in 1835, it has been decaying gradually.


Mechanical Bliss:

This is because the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time. Not only does the magnitude fluctuate, but the magnetic pole reverses its orientation periodically as well. This was not known in 1835. You are using outdated information.


Defending Our Lord:


Now if you had any ideas about lowering your idea a few million years, this will prove even that wrong. Following the second law of thermodynamics, the field is leading to a state of disorder, as is everything else in the world, including animals, and humanity. This is not evolutionary. However, Dr. Barnes made the statement that life could not have been possible at anymore than 10,000 years ago without the magnetic field, yet we were to have been already sophisticated humans (Almost) by then?


Mechanical Bliss:


Your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, first of all, and again, you are using outdated information. This was before we understood paleomagnetism and plate tectonics. The ocean floor evidently documents reversals in the Earth's magnetic field and fluctuations in field strength over time. The ocean floor also documents approximately 200 million years of Earth's history.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Defending Our Lord
Physicist Thomas Barnes has done careful research in the study of the magnetic field, and since the magnetism was first measured in 1835, it has been decaying gradually. Now if you had any ideas about lowering your idea a few million years, this will prove even that wrong. Following the second law of thermodynamics, the field is leading to a state of disorder, as is everything else in the world, including animals, and humanity. This is not evolutionary. However, Dr. Barnes made the statement that life could not have been possible at anymore than 10,000 years ago without the magnetic field, yet we were to have been already sophisticated humans (Almost) by then?

First of all, ocean asked for credible evidence (i.e., "no Kent Hovind stuff") and yet you brought up one of Hovind's arguments.

The information on which this argument is based is outdated and does not adhere to the modern model of the Earth and source for its magnetic field. It has also been shown that the Earth's magnetic field has not only decreased, but also increased in magnitude over time. The magnitude fluctuates and the polarity of the field has been prone to numerous reversals which are well documented on the ocean floor (and in continental rocks as well). Barnes does not account for this evidence in his argument.

This argument has been refuted and is considered invalid in the scientific community. It is not evidence for a young earth at all.

FURTHERMORE, this argument does not make all the other evidence for an old earth simply go away. We have evidence from radiometric dating, calculations of the Earth's degassing of its interior, and other lines of evidence that observe sedimentation rates, magma cooling histories, extinct nuclide decay, and even modern views of paleomagnetism itself, etc. that simply cannot be dismissed.

Nope, there is no positive evidence that supports the notion of an Earth with a thousands-of-years-old age that either ignores/misconstrues other evidence or is not falsified by other evidence.

 

[lithium.]

lol

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Here are a few sites for you, Defending Our Lord:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm