Creationism Curiosity

[Cabal]

Anything we do not know is a suggestion of creation.
So you know there are many many.

God of gaps.

Fail.

Most undergraduate students today (at least in US) are quite stupid. They think everything must have a standard answer, and they have no ability of asking questions (and they voted for Obama!) I guess it should be credited to the teaching of evolution and the so-called real science.

Obama has nothing to do with this. Please try and keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum.

Last time I checked, vague suggestions and faffing about weren't rated over actual evidence that supports the best theories, so "suggestions" can take a hike.

 

[lostaquarium]

Just FYI, there is no such thing as an intellectually honest creationist who has a REAL (as in not mail order) degree in biology, they are all "evolutionist" now. I mean you can only stare fact in the face and say "NOT LISTENING" for so long.

*Raises hand* - I'm a creationist, 3rd year medicine at Cambridge University.

I also want to make the points:
1) True things are not necessarily scientifically provable (by the criterea you posted).
2) Many aspects of current scientific opinion embraces things that are "suggested" but not "proven". I can give examples if necessary.

Scope: is the hypothesis able to fully describe the diversity of our observations?
Yes, I think creationism does, quite a lot more simply than other theories.

Simplicity/Parsimony: is the hypothesis as simple as possible to explain our observations, and does it refrain from invoking unnecessary entities to explain what we observe?
Creationism is simple. But the latter half of this definition seems specially-made to exclude God. It makes the untested assumption that there are no extra entities. Therefore is it really valid?

Conservatism: does the implications of the hypothesis maintain current established principles?
Yes, I can see how Creationism fits in with most of our scientific observations. But note the difference between observations and conclusions - scientists can always make mistakes when interpreting what they observe. Creationism doesn't conflict with any observations themselves. (Feel free to bring up any specific points.)

Convergence: does the evidence cited to support the hypothesis converge with other types of evidence or evidence from other fields?
Yes, see above.

Testability: does the hypothesis make predictions that are able to be tested?
No, we can't repeat the beginning of the world. In the same way, we can't test the Big Bang theory, or evolution.

Fruitfulness: can the hypothesis offer successful predictions that tell us something new about the natural world?
Yes, if people believe God created the world, this would be extremely fruitful!

Hope this helps.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Miscommunication.

Creationist said: scientific evidence (which suggests) creation.
Materialist said: scientific evidence (which proves) creation.

The "scientific evidence for creation" simply does not make it clear enough. There are tons of scientific evidences that suggest creation.

Interesting observation, but I'm not sure this is accurate. There are lots of suggestions and leanings in science--far moreso than proofs, but they're still subject to the criteria. I think this is one place the criteria of adequacy (note: not the criteria of absolute proof) could clear a lot of murky water.

After all--a mere suggestion of something is no reason to teach it in a high school science classroom. There is something fundamentally different between creation and evolution, and I think fulfillment via the criteria of adequacy is that thing.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Anything we do not know is a suggestion of creation.
So you know there are many many.

While I disagree with many posters before me on the laziness of suggestion (which is a common name for preliminary claims in science--I prefer it for my own ), I fear this logic is incorrect.

This idea of the unknown being evidence for something specific is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, or the argument from ignorance. It relies on the refusal of the burden of proof, as it offers little positive evidence on its own but instead demands being proven wrong.

 

[Ectezus]

Juvenissun,

You said there are "tons of scientific evidences for creation" and after I've asked you to give us some of that scientific evidence this is the best you can come up with??

Anything we do not know is a suggestion of creation.
So you know there are many many.

Wow...

"Anything we do not know" + "is a suggestion of creation"

That might just be one of the best arguments I've ever heared! Goo Juvenissun.

Oh by the way, you can not call something scientific if it's not scientific. 'Scientific' is not a synonym for "really really true" that you can use as an adjective whenever you like.

- Ectezus

 

[Split Rock]

Most undergraduate students today (at least in US) are quite stupid. They think everything must have a standard answer, and they have no ability of asking questions (and they voted for Obama!) I guess it should be credited to the teaching of evolution and the so-called real science.

Please show us the connection between stupid students, voting for Obama, and the teaching of evolution.

 

[Ectezus]

Testability: does the hypothesis make predictions that are able to be tested?
No, we can't repeat the beginning of the world. In the same way, we can't test the Big Bang theory, or evolution.

Wrong.
The question is about predictions that are able to be tested. Not the 'event' itself.

Scientists use predictions from understanding the theory of evolution all the time: Predicting what flu vaccine is going to be needed because of how the flu evolves.
And also: Using multiple medicine cocktails to prevent drug resistance to build up because bacteria evolve to resist but against 3 at the same time is very unlikely.
Just naming 2 of many here.

Big Bang theory: The universe is expanding. Tomorrow it will still be expanding and in all directions. It predicts wherever you look you'll find the same cosmic background (explosion) radiation.

So tell me, what predictions does creationism make that can be tested?
I await your reply.

- Ectezus

 

[Washington]

Scientific evidence for creation? Please take Logic 101, then ask again.

Creationism

CREATIONISM

CREATIONISM

CREATIONISM
​

 

[Split Rock]

*Raises hand* - I'm a creationist, 3rd year medicine at Cambridge University.

I also want to make the points:
1) True things are not necessarily scientifically provable (by the criterea you posted).

Technically nothing is "proven" in science. In addition, I agree that some things are outside the perview of science.. but nature is not one of these.

*2) Many aspects of current scientific opinion embraces things that are "suggested" but not "proven". I can give examples if necessary.

There are theories that are inferred by the data.. such as common descent. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by "suggested."

*Scope: is the hypothesis able to fully describe the diversity of our observations?
Yes, I think creationism does, quite a lot more simply than other theories.

It is very simple to say "Goddidit." It is also quite useless.

*Simplicity/Parsimony: is the hypothesis as simple as possible to explain our observations, and does it refrain from invoking unnecessary entities to explain what we observe?
Creationism is simple. But the latter half of this definition seems specially-made to exclude God. It makes the untested assumption that there are no extra entities. Therefore is it really valid?

Does this include the Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives under my bed? Should we include her to avoid excluded every single possible "extra entities?"

*Conservatism: does the implications of the hypothesis maintain current established principles?
Yes, I can see how Creationism fits in with most of our scientific observations. But note the difference between observations and conclusions - scientists can always make mistakes when interpreting what they observe. Creationism doesn't conflict with any observations themselves. (Feel free to bring up any specific points.)

Sure:
1. The ex nihilo creation of all life on earth, including man, about 6,000 years ago.
2. A world-wide flood that occurred a few thousand years ago and that is responsible for most geology we see today.
Both of these major pillars of modern creationism have been falsified by the physical data.

*Testability: does the hypothesis make predictions that are able to be tested?
No, we can't repeat the beginning of the world. In the same way, we can't test the Big Bang theory, or evolution.

Wrong. We can and have tested both. The Background Microwave Radiation is a prediction of The Big Bang. The twin-nested hierarchy (morphology and genetics) is a prediction of evolution. There are other examples.

*Fruitfulness: can the hypothesis offer successful predictions that tell us something new about the natural world?
Yes, if people believe God created the world, this would be extremely fruitful!
.

How so?
Which of these questions does creationsim answer?

1. Why are species found on isolated islands so different from those found on the nearest continent, and from those found on other islands with similar conditions?

2. Why are extant species so similar to extinct species in the same geological area?

3. Why are there Ring Species?

4. Why are the vast majority of species extinct?

5. Why are there a prevalance of marsupials species in Australia and Tasmania compared to the rest of the continents?

6. Why do birds have the genetic sequences to create teeth and whales the genetic sequences to create legs?

7. Why do we have an organ who's major funtion is to become infected and burst inside of us?

8. Why do microorganisms become resistant to antibiotics?

9. Why do weeds become resitant to herbicides?

10. Why are there atavisms (throwbacks)?

Those are just off the top of my head.

 

[juvenissun]

Please show us the connection between stupid students, voting for Obama, and the teaching of evolution.

Grab any college student and there is the connection. The successful rate of sampling is like 90%.

 

[juvenissun]

While I disagree with many posters before me on the laziness of suggestion (which is a common name for preliminary claims in science--I prefer it for my own ), I fear this logic is incorrect.

This idea of the unknown being evidence for something specific is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, or the argument from ignorance. It relies on the refusal of the burden of proof, as it offers little positive evidence on its own but instead demands being proven wrong.

This argument is valid 3000 years ago. It is still valid today and it will be valid in the future until God reveals Himself. I said this not because I am ignorant, but because I have the highest degree of education any human being could possibly have.

 

[Hespera]

That is quite a statement, Juv, that you have the "highest degree of education that any human being could possibly have". Could you demonstrate that with correct English grammar and word usage in all of your posts in the future?

If you fail to show that you actually can use good English, it will give rise to suspicion that maybe you are not quite as educated as you say you are.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

This argument is valid 3000 years ago. It is still valid today and it will be valid in the future until God reveals Himself. I said this not because I am ignorant, but because I have the highest degree of education any human being could possibly have.

You know I was not name calling--you're blatantly ignoring my point.

Insert anything else into the equation beside God and creation, and you would admit the argument doesn't hold any water. This doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but it does make this is a bad argument for it.

A gap in personal or scientific knowledge of something does not suggest the truthfulness of anything, in and of itself. It is simply a gap, which may or may not be eventually filled. However, there are instances of gaps meaning something when a prediction says we really should have made certain observations by now. These instances are never as nebulous as "everything we don't know suggests creation."

Now if you're talking about spiritual knowledge or personal revelation, tell God to send some my way. He's got my cell phone number and he's invited to my barbecue, so he shouldn't feel like he'd be imposing. Thus far, I've heard little but tall tales from people frustrated that I don't just take their word for it.

Off topic, but.. I was (and still am) a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[juvenissun]

A gap in personal or scientific knowledge of something does not suggest the truthfulness of anything, in and of itself.

It does. A suggestion is only that, a suggestion. It is not a proof.

So, if I heard thunder and I suggested it to you that it is an action of God, it is a valid suggestion.

Since we do not really understand ANY natural phenomenon, this is, indeed, a very strong suggestion of creation.

 

[lostaquarium]

Scientists use predictions from understanding the theory of evolution all the time: Predicting what flu vaccine is going to be needed because of how the flu evolves.
And also: Using multiple medicine cocktails to prevent drug resistance to build up because bacteria evolve to resist but against 3 at the same time is very unlikely.

No. What you've described is natural selection, which occurs. No debate.

The theory of evolution states that all organisms are the way they are because of continuous natural selection from the beginning of time. This is the bit I have a problem with.

Please be careful in the way you use the word "evolve". It means "change over time". Of course things change over time. Just don't confuse it with "theory of evolution", which means something much more specific.

Big Bang theory: The universe is expanding. Tomorrow it will still be expanding and in all directions. It predicts wherever you look you'll find the same cosmic background (explosion) radiation.

OK, I'm not arguing against Big Bang theory here. But to use it as an example, what you say isn't true. Big Bang theory doesn't predict the finding of background radiation. Big Bang theory was based on the finding of background radiation.

So tell me, what predictions does creationism make that can be tested?

Creationism simply states that God created the world. It doesn't tell us how God created the world. Until we know the mechanisms, we can't make predictions. It's an unfair question.

Please note also: Most (or all?) scientific hypotheses can't be proven, they can only be disproven. If a hypothesis stands for ages without being disproven, then its credibility increases.

 

[lostaquarium]

Technically nothing is "proven" in science. In addition, I agree that some things are outside the perview of science.. but nature is not one of these.

I'm curious now. What things are outside the perview of science? How do you define nature (I thought the whole world is nature)?

There are theories that are inferred by the data.. such as common descent. I'm not sure if that is what you mean by "suggested."

Yes, "inferred" works too. I mean, when you do an experiment and get a set of data - what the data "suggests" or "infers".

It is very simple to say "Goddidit." It is also quite useless.

It's not useless if it means God exists. I think that's quite a useful bit of knowledge to have.

Does this include the Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives under my bed? Should we include her to avoid excluded every single possible "extra entities?"

No, because you just made that up. If you find good evidence for the pink unicorn, then we should of course consider it.

Sure:
1. The ex nihilo creation of all life on earth, including man, about 6,000 years ago.
2. A world-wide flood that occurred a few thousand years ago and that is responsible for most geology we see today.
Both of these major pillars of modern creationism have been falsified by the physical data.

Neither of these areas are my specialty, so I'd better not hazard an answer. What I've heard in this regard is, that fossils could have been made from the animals drowned in the flood. What physical data falsifies the first point?

Wrong. We can and have tested both. The Background Microwave Radiation is a prediction of The Big Bang. The twin-nested hierarchy (morphology and genetics) is a prediction of evolution. There are other examples.

I'm not arguing against the Big Bang. I actually think the Big Bang supports Creationism. As for genetics - that's supports natural selection, not evolution. Natural selection is an observation that nobody doubts. Evolution is a much grander theory that incorporates natural selection as a mechanism.

Which of these questions does creationsim answer?

These are all "why" questions, and "why" questions can be answered in two ways: Philosophically (eg why is my car green? - answer: because I like the colour green) or mechanistically (eg why is my car green? - answer: because the spray paint reflects that wavelength).

I can answer all your questions philosophically as - "Because God willed it that way".
Mechanistically, I don't have the answers, because the Bible doesn't tell us. That's our job to find out, through scientific study. Science has given us some great answers. But truly rigorous science requires us not to jump to conclusions.

Don't just listen to what you're told, but evaluate the evidence before you. Having done that all my life, I feel Evolution (ie natural selection as the sole means of making every organism) is something I just don't buy.

 

[Lobster]

It's not useless if it means God exists. I think that's quite a useful bit of knowledge to have.

What predictions can you generate from it that you can't generate from other theories about the world? That's what scientists mean by useful. As an example of how evolution is useful in this context, just look at Neil Shute's discovery of Tiktaalik. He looked at two fossil fish/amphibians, one from approximately 385 million years ago and one living about 365 million years ago. These creatures were found in deposits that used to be shallow swamps. Shute confined his search to rock deposits that were 375 million years old that used to be shallow swamps and were exposed to the surface. The only place he could find such a place was out in Newfoundland. After two expeditions he discovered a new species that had skeletal traits midway between the previously discovered fossils!
Rather than being an oddity, this is how paleontologists go about searching for new species of animals.

No, because you just made that up. If you find good evidence for the pink unicorn, then we should of course consider it.

But you've just said we have no right to exclude entities without evidence from our explanations. Just as there's no evidence for a pink unicorn causing gravity or rain or thunder, there's also no evidence that god played a role either. If you see someone knock over a cup, do you think "the person knocked the cup over and it fell to the ground" or do you think "the person touched the cup and an invisible fairy leaped out of his hand, pushed the cup over the edge, then flew it to the ground." One of these hypotheses is more elegant simply because it has fewer entities to consider.

It's important to note that science doesn't say you should NEVER hypothesize about unknown entities- it just says that you should do that after exhausting all other possibilities. Two examples of science actually doing this would be physicist's search for the Higgs-Boson particle and then, back to evolution, Darwin's hypothesis that there should be some unit of inheritance that is related somehow to sex.

Neither of these areas are my specialty, so I'd better not hazard an answer. What I've heard in this regard is, that fossils could have been made from the animals drowned in the flood. What physical data falsifies the first point?

Just as a quickie, they wouldn't be arranged the way they are in rock strata. Organisms occupy distinct layers in geological strata so that you don't see rabbits in the Ediacaran and you don't see saber tooth tigers in the Jurassic. You also see patterns of distribution according to geography- earlier ceratopsians like protoceratops and psittacosaurus are found in earlier deposits in Asia, but later ceratopsians are found in North America in different rock deposits. If the fossils had resulted from one cataclysmic event, why would you see animals in different rock layers and in different locations.

I'm not arguing against the Big Bang. I actually think the Big Bang supports Creationism. As for genetics - that's supports natural selection, not evolution. Natural selection is an observation that nobody doubts. Evolution is a much grander theory that incorporates natural selection as a mechanism.

Genetics actually supports evolution as well. There's a reason that birds havev DNA that's more similar to other birds, and mammals have DNA that's more similar to other mammals, but birds and mammals have DNA that's more similar than either have with fish. If you start grouping animals under different traits, what you start to get is an expanding pool of groupings. What's REALLY interesting is that this pool of groupings can be organized like a tree. What's even more interesting than that if you construct a tree out of genetics instead of physical traits, you get an almost identical tree.

I can answer all your questions philosophically as - "Because God willed it that way".
Mechanistically, I don't have the answers, because the Bible doesn't tell us. That's our job to find out, through scientific study. Science has given us some great answers. But truly rigorous science requires us not to jump to conclusions.

It's not jumping to conclusions though. It's not like evolution was concocted out of air by Darwin and embraced because it was the only explanation we had available. There's been 150 years of people trying to argue, disprove and throw out evolution. Rather than accumulate flaws with the theory, evolution has been continuously reinforced.

Don't just listen to what you're told, but evaluate the evidence before you. Having done that all my life, I feel Evolution (ie natural selection as the sole means of making every organism) is something I just don't buy.

Don't assume that everyone has accepted evolution just because it's easy! Some of us have actually worked hard at evaluating the evidence and for some reason we still believe that it offers the best explanation for the diversity of life. I'm not sure what you mean by 'making' an organism, but natural selection is not the only method by which new species come into being. Things like genetic drift and sexual selection also come into play. Please go into further detail about your problems with evolution though.

 

[Ectezus]

No. What you've described is natural selection, which occurs. No debate.

Great no debate. I gave a good example of a prediction when you said the ToE couldn't. Just because you have a different definition of evolution doesn't mean scientists are confused. Micro and macro evolution use the exact same principles: random mutation + natural selection. And the example I gave uses those two principles to make predictions.

OK, I'm not arguing against Big Bang theory here. But to use it as an example, what you say isn't true. Big Bang theory doesn't predict the finding of background radiation. Big Bang theory was based on the finding of background radiation.

Wrong again, we didn't look at every single spot in the universe. We checked a few, found the background radiation to be the same everywhere (where we looked) and then we can predict that it will also be there in places we haven't looked yet.

And there are quite a lot more (like predicting the abundance of the light elements) but like you said we're not here to discuss the Big Bang theory. You however wrongfully implied that the Big Bang theory couldn't make predictions. I'm just correcting that mistake.

Creationism simply states that God created the world. It doesn't tell us how God created the world. Until we know the mechanisms, we can't make predictions.

I have a theory that pink unicorns might be living inside the sun. I'm not able to test it yet though.
This theory is actually better than your GOD hypothesis because our sun is something we can test. Your god, heaven, hell, miracles and whatever other supernatural can by definition never be tested.

Creationism doesn't make any predictions, it's a dead end. "Here's how it happened and now stop thinking". If god created everything out of thin air then I want to know who created god. To say he has always been there is ridiculous because then all the matter and life might just always have been there aswell, without the need for a god.

- Ectezus

 

[Split Rock]

Please show us the connection between stupid students, voting for Obama, and the teaching of evolution.

Grab any college student and there is the connection. The successful rate of sampling is like 90%.

So, you are claiming that 90% of stupid college students voted for Obama, because they learned about evolution. I call shenanigans! You are just making stuff up.

I said this not because I am ignorant, but because I have the highest degree of education any human being could possibly have.

That is quite a statement, Juv, that you have the "highest degree of education that any human being could possibly have". Could you demonstrate that with correct English grammar and word usage in all of your posts in the future?

If you fail to show that you actually can use good English, it will give rise to suspicion that maybe you are not quite as educated as you say you are.

Considering Juvie's last response to my post, I have to agree with you.

 

[lostaquarium]

What predictions can you generate from it that you can't generate from other theories about the world? That's what scientists mean by useful.

In that case, knowledge of God is not scientifically useful I'm perfectly happy to own that fact! To the individual, it's the most useful thing in the world - the difference between life and death.

But you've just said we have no right to exclude entities without evidence from our explanations. Just as there's no evidence for a pink unicorn causing gravity or rain or thunder, there's also no evidence that god played a role either. If you see someone knock over a cup, do you think "the person knocked the cup over and it fell to the ground" or do you think "the person touched the cup and an invisible fairy leaped out of his hand, pushed the cup over the edge, then flew it to the ground." One of these hypotheses is more elegant simply because it has fewer entities to consider.

You're getting into the realm of the ridiculous here...
I'll just make the point that there is plenty of evidence for God creating the world. I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything without evidence. My evidence for God comes from three sources:
- Historical evidence in the Bible. It's more well-preserved than any other text in existance. You'll see a lot more inconsistencies between different copies of The Odyssey than between different copies of the Bible.
- Natural science. I come across it every day and I am never, never convinced that it was achieved by random mutations and selection alone.
- Personal experiences.

I look at these sources and weigh them up in my head, and Creationism is the conclusion I come to. I can't convince you in a forum post. You're going to have to do it for yourself.

Just as a quickie, they wouldn't be arranged the way they are in rock strata. Organisms occupy distinct layers in geological strata so that you don't see rabbits in the Ediacaran and you don't see saber tooth tigers in the Jurassic. You also see patterns of distribution according to geography- earlier ceratopsians like protoceratops and psittacosaurus are found in earlier deposits in Asia, but later ceratopsians are found in North America in different rock deposits. If the fossils had resulted from one cataclysmic event, why would you see animals in different rock layers and in different locations.

OK. I obviously don't know enough about this Just one point: how are entire animals preserved within a thick layer of soil? e.g. a horse is 2 metres high and would a lot of time for soil deposits to build up around it - during which it must have decomposed / been blown away / something. It seems to me you need a dramatic deposit to fossilize an animal. Like a flood.

Genetics actually supports evolution as well. There's a reason that birds havev DNA that's more similar to other birds, and mammals have DNA that's more similar to other mammals, but birds and mammals have DNA that's more similar than either have with fish. If you start grouping animals under different traits, what you start to get is an expanding pool of groupings. What's REALLY interesting is that this pool of groupings can be organized like a tree. What's even more interesting than that if you construct a tree out of genetics instead of physical traits, you get an almost identical tree.

Sure. It's not impossible that God did it this way: He took an amoeba, then changed it slightly to make a more sophisticated amoeba, then duplicated its cells, ... then added gills, ... then added feet. I mean, that would give the same result. He doesn't have to start from scratch for each organism.

It's not jumping to conclusions though. It's not like evolution was concocted out of air by Darwin and embraced because it was the only explanation we had available. There's been 150 years of people trying to argue, disprove and throw out evolution. Rather than accumulate flaws with the theory, evolution has been continuously reinforced.

Evolution was embraced because it is an extremely elegant, intelligent theory Doesn't mean it's true though! Read through the literature of any biological specialisation (e.g. neuroscience) and you'll see lots of beautiful theories which make sense at the time, but are later disproved.

Also, I might be mistaken in this, but I hear there are emerging problems with Evolution, especially as you get into the most specialised areas. Some athiests aren't entirely convinced about Evolution either.

Please go into further detail about your problems with evolution though.

It just seems to me that Evolution is more of a "cop-out" than Creationism is. Look, Evolution starts with the assumption that "there is no God", and goes on to say "therefore everything must have been by random mutations and selection". Then, to accomodate the probabilities involved, Evolution states "life must have appeared millions and millions of years ago". Is there anything (other than Evolution) that suggests that life is this old?