Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Subduction Zone]

We're not talking about the theory of evolution. Someone earlier in the thread claimed that life had been created from non-living chemicals and that there was proof of it. I want to see such proof.

Well in that case they were wrong. There is evidence that support abiogenesis, but not enough to call it a theory yet. Many of the questions of abiogenesis have been answered, but not enough of them to lift it out of the hypothetical stage yet. It is a very very strong hypothesis but it is not quite a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't wait to see this proof of someone having created life from chemicals. It will be worth the wait.

You might not have to wait to terribly wrong. Actually artificial life has been made. But it would not qualify as abiogenesis. Perhaps that is what the poster meant. I thought that you were denying the clear and obvious evidence for evolution earlier.

 

[Astrophile]

Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.

Do you think that chemistry was meaningless before scientists found out how the chemical elements were made? Is meteorology meaningless because we don't know where the Earth's atmosphere came from? Is geology meaningless because we don't know exactly how the Earth was formed?

 

[Astrophile]

Remember, creationists don't argue against changes, sometimes quite dramatic changes, but only against one type of creature changing into something totally different.

Do you think that ducks, grebes and swans, or hawks, eagles and falcons could be descended from common ancestors, or are they so 'totally different' that they must be separate creations?

 

[SteveB28]

Are you serious? Show me the evidence (and please, not the discredited Miller-Urey stuff). I want to see someone taking some chemicals and creating something that can actually said to be alive. If you can also show how such life could then reproduce itself, I might believe your claims. If you can't, then as far as I'm concerned, it remains a fairy tale.

My apology. You are referring to abiogenesis. I thought we were discussing evolution. In the case of the former, yes, 'I don't know' is the correct response.

 

[SteveB28]

No, I believe because I don't see anything to convince me that the reverse is true. We all base our assumptions on our personal experiences and I've not seen any evidence whatsoever of how life could come about from lifeless chemicals and then organise itself to start reproducing before it dies out again. The workings of the living cell are so complex that man, despite his vast knowledge and intelligence, plus a working model to observe, cannot come close to making such a structure. And yet you want me to believe that chemicals, without anything to guide them, could organise all this on their own. You want me to believe that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing and then became what we see today. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in what to me, seem like completely absurd notions.

False dichotomy. Abiogenesis occurring naturally is only one of many alternatives. You don't own the position of 'not this, therefore that'.

 

[Hoghead1]

Much depends, NotByChance, on how you view the relationship of mind to matter. I view mind and matter as one. All things, in all their aspects, consists of minds or souls. Even atoms have tine minds. There is no passive, inert, dead matter. Everything is alive. The best way to think of the universe is to think about it as an organism. There ids no hard--and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving, the organic and the inorganic, to start with.

 

[Hoghead1]

The issue, NotByChance, is not whether or not one believes in God, but what kind of God one believe in. For example, I and many others have no trouble reconciling evolution with the existence of God. But I see God ass dynamic and that is very different from how creation-science people see God. They view God as wholly static, immutable. God does not change in any way and so neither do we or the universe. Creation is over, finished, done with. Hence, evolution, the birth of the new, is completely ruled out. But who says God does not change? Well, the classical or traditional Christian image of God as he is in his own nature. What many overlook is that this picture of God comes largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, which view the world of time and change as unreal, rather than the Bible. Incidentally, the Bible speaks of God as changing in about 100 passages. I and many other theologians feel the classical model is too lopsided. God may well be immutable in certain aspects, but is changeable in others. The reason why evolution occurs is that God is eternally creative, never ceases creating. God introduces creative possibilities, which may be actualized for a time, during which God enjoys the beauty of the world. But the same old, same old gets boring. Hence, God may introduce surprising new creative possibilities which move the universe in totally unexpected directions.

If we take our personal experience seriously, we find that you cannot put your foot in the same stream twice, that no thinker things twice. Moment to moment we are a different self, if not for the fact we're a moment wiser. Reality is in a constraint state of creative flux. Evolution is the basic structure of reality.

 

[florida2]

The point I was trying to make is that, despite what we often hear on these forums, creation-believing scientists can do real science and can achieve just as much as their evolution-believing counterparts. Also, just because the majority believe in evolution doesn't mean that those scientists are any better or their theories are any more likely to be true. Dr Menton clearly rejects the notion of molecules to man evolution, so if it's good enough for an expert like him, then it's good enough for me too and I find his arguments much more plausible than the alternative theories. Perhaps you should watch some of his videos - "Evolution: Not a Chance" is a good place to start.

Translation: I hunted around until I found someone vaguely sciencey who I agreed with who I will now trust as my only source.

 

[Hoghead1]

Maybe, NotByChance, you view Menton as some hotshot academic, standing head and shoulders about the mainstream scientific community. Well, I sure don't. He is legit, which is refreshing, as more than one creation-science authority has not education or sports bogus degrees. So Menton is at least legit. But big deal, so what? His credentials are simply average in academia. He is no shining star, believe me. Remember, just about everyone in academia has a Ph.D., plus publications, plus awards, etc. I have a doctorate, too, and in some areas I think my resume would beat his. But let us not go there. My point is that, for me anyway, I view him as just another colleague, not some hotshot academic standing way over and above me. I have fought against mediocrity all my life. So I am not about to waste time on some cheesy videos produced by some mediocre, run-of-the-mill fellow academic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think Dr Menton would agree with this. He's clearly making his arguments from the scientific standpoint as you would see if you watched any of his videos.

Someone with high school level knowledge on evolution theory could take down those arguments. Just saying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Like it says, "In the beginning God..." I believe it happened that way. You don't, so you've got to try to find an alternative explanation

Not an "alternative" explanation.

JUST an explanation.

What you have is not an explanation - and it most certainly is not the default explanation.

It's just an assertion that you can't demonstrate or support. And not just any assertion... it's a religious assertion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You just hit the nail on the head. Hence, this thread is so cool!

"...overtly pro-evolution and anti-creationism"

So, how can they be non-biased?

They are also all overtly pro-embryology, pro-gravity, pro-heliocentrism and very much anti-stork theory, anti-pink graviton fairies and anti-astrology.

The horror, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wonder what they are afraid of?

I can think of a few things:
- raising a generation of ignorant citizens
- wasting money
- ...

Could it be that if children were allowed to hear the other side of the argument, they might start to question the evolutionary indoctrination that currently takes place?

No. It's just that a work-week only has so many hours and they prefer to use that time efficientely, instead of giving "equal time" to any and every crackpot idea.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think so - at least not from what I've seen of the way the eye is constructed and functions. Darwin wouldn't have had a clue about that in his time. Same goes for the working of the living cell.

Read the book. It's in there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Also known as "common sense."

Common sense can only build upon what you already know (or think to know). Common sense can't keep things you do not know into account.

If you don't know what fire is, then "common sense" won't dictate to you that you'll get hurt if you put your hand in it.

We don't see it happening; we have no idea how it could happen: we don't even know that it has happened;

Yep. Incredulity.

statistical probabilities against it happening are so ludicrously high

If you don't know how it could happen, like you have just stated, then you also can't calculate the probability of it happening............. derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.

Abiogenesis studies how life can form.

Evolution is about the processes existing life is subject to. In context of studying existing life, it matters not how that life originated.

Life exists and we can study it and identify the laws and processes that it is subject to.

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because when a claim that supports evolution also supports creation, it can't be regarded as proof of one theory over the other.

Ok. In that case, I'll just make up some idea about the undetectable, extra-dimensional 7-headed dragon that created life. Every argument "in support" of your creationism will be made to also support that dragon.

I win.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is often stated on these forums that people who believe in creation can't be real scientists or if they are, they are failed scientists.

What we have said time and again is that no one is using creationism to do science.

Yet, this man is a strong believer in creation by the Lord Jesus and totally against evolution.

Being against something is not doing science.

Doing science means that you use the scientific method to try and answer a question.

 

[Loudmouth]

A "singularity" isn't nothing. I want to know where the singularity came from.

We don't need to know where the singularity came from in order to know that the universe started expanding form a single point nearly 14 billion years ago.